running head: parenting in poverty 1 effective parenting
Post on 03-Nov-2021
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: PARENTING IN POVERTY 1
Effective Parenting in Poverty: An Adlerian Approach
A Literature Review
Presented to
The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School
____________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
The Degree of Master of Arts in
Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy
____________________
By
Jennifer Boyd
____________________
Chair: Rachelle J. Reinisch, DMFT
Member: Ruth K. Dahle Buelow, DMFT
____________________
June, 2017
PARENTING IN POVERTY 2
Abstract
In the United States, a significant number of families are living in poverty. As a result, parents
experience an increased amount of stress and many barriers exist that could hinder effective
parenting for low-income families. Stress may include economic stress, dangerous
neighborhoods, and overwhelming discouragement. Through monthly parenting sessions, the
therapist and the parents identify parenting styles and incorporate Adlerian parenting concepts
into a new approach to parenting. An Adlerian parenting approach could be used to assist
families and parents living in poverty. Parents can easily incorporate Adlerian concepts such as
goals of misbehavior and the Crucial Cs. The incorporation of these concepts would contribute
to the parent’s ability to understand child behavior, review and adjust parenting styles, and
overcome barriers to parenting while living in poverty.
Keywords: parenting, poverty, Adlerian parenting
PARENTING IN POVERTY 3
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to thank God for giving me the strength and courage to try
something new and to push through life’s challenges and come out on the other side having a
greater understanding of my own abilities and what I have to offer the world. I am thankful for
my parents and brother for loving, supporting, and encouraging me, pushing me to go with my
dreams, and take chances. Win or lose, at the end of the day, I know I have a safe place to
retreat. A huge thank you to Miss Moss, my middle school and high school learning disabilities
tutor—you are where my love of learning took off. You taught me the skills I needed to be
successful, not just in school, but in life. You encouraged me not to limit myself. Thank you to
my friends for their patience and endurance through this rollercoaster journey. A special thank
you to Gilbert Sace for his time, amazing editing skills, and endless belief that I would achieve
whatever I put my mind to. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Rachelle Reinisch, my chairperson.
She loves what she does, and it is evident in her dedication to each project and how she treats the
students she works with. She has a wealth of knowledge, caring, an understanding attitude, and
an ability to take the simplest idea, or most confusing sentence, and turn it into a wonderful
Master’s Project. I have been so blessed to be able to work with her throughout this process.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 4
Effective Parenting in Poverty: An Adlerian Approach
Copyright © 2017
Jennifer Boyd
All rights reserved
PARENTING IN POVERTY 5
Table of Contents
Parenting Styles .............................................................................................................................. 8
Authoritarian Parenting ............................................................................................................... 9
Permissive Parenting ................................................................................................................. 10
Authoritative ............................................................................................................................. 11
Poverty .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Intergenerational Poverty .......................................................................................................... 15
Cultural Influences .................................................................................................................... 16
Children and Poverty ................................................................................................................ 17
Parenting in poverty .................................................................................................................. 18
Barriers to Successful Parenting ................................................................................................... 20
Stress ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Family Stress Model. ............................................................................................................ 21
Culture and parenting in poverty. ......................................................................................... 22
Neighborhoods. ..................................................................................................................... 23
Time .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Shame ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Individual Psychology .................................................................................................................. 24
Lifestyle .................................................................................................................................... 26
Self-Concept. ........................................................................................................................ 26
Self-ideal. .............................................................................................................................. 26
Weltbild................................................................................................................................. 27
Ethical convictions. ............................................................................................................... 27
Final Fictive Goal ..................................................................................................................... 27
Movement ................................................................................................................................. 28
Social Interest............................................................................................................................ 28
Courage and Encouragement .................................................................................................... 29
Individual Psychology and Parenting ........................................................................................... 29
Goals of Misbehavior ................................................................................................................ 34
Undue attention. .................................................................................................................... 34
Power. ................................................................................................................................... 35
Revenge................................................................................................................................. 37
Complete inadequacy. ........................................................................................................... 37
PARENTING IN POVERTY 6
The Crucial Cs .......................................................................................................................... 38
Connected. ............................................................................................................................ 38
Capable. ................................................................................................................................ 39
Count. .................................................................................................................................... 39
Courage. ................................................................................................................................ 40
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................... 40
Intake..................................................................................................................................... 41
Parent session one. ............................................................................................................. 41
Parent session two. ................................................................................................................ 42
Parent session three. .............................................................................................................. 42
Parent session four. ............................................................................................................... 43
Ongoing parent check-in sessions. ........................................................................................ 44
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................... 44
References ..................................................................................................................................... 46
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 53
Parent Sessions.......................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 56
Reminder Chart ......................................................................................................................... 57
PARENTING IN POVERTY 7
Effective Parenting in Poverty: An Adlerian Solution
Parenting practices in impoverished societies are primarily knowledge-based and
inherited from previous generations (Brooks-Gunn, Britto, & Brady, 1999; Smith, Stagnitti,
Lewis, & Pepin, 2015). Parents living in poverty have limited access to outside support and are
less likely to seek professional support. Because of limited access to support and services, there
is an increased need to bring parenting education to families living in poverty. Milne and
Plourde (2006) suggested that parenting education can reveal parental strengths and assist with
current challenges to increase effective parenting skills and promote future family well-being.
Positive parental involvement includes support, warmth, consistency, and minimal
antagonism. Positive parental involvement has an impact on a child’s ability to become socially
and educationally competent. Additionally, positive parental involvement could decrease the
child’s risk of emotional or behavioral concerns (Conger, Wallace, Sun, McLoyd, & Brody,
2002; Scaramella, Conger, & Simons, 1999). Parents with social and emotional support, a strong
family structure, and access to supportive family and friends, tend to have less depression and
are able to handle the stress of parenting and life in general (Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord,
1995).
People are individual components living within larger systems such as family, friends,
work, or school (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Adults may choose to remain in a particular system;
however, a child may not have a choice. A child does not have the opportunity to choose his or
her family system. Typically, when therapists work with children, parents are almost always a
part of the therapeutic process. One therapeutic assumption would be that parents do the best
they can and want what is best for their children (Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 8
Parenting is a challenging task, and parents experience many things that can become
barriers to successful parenting (Milne & Plourde, 2006). There are a wide range of barriers to
effective parenting that include: substance abuse, parent and child personality conflicts, mental
health concerns, and poverty issues (Smith, Stagnitti, Lewis, & Pepin, 2015). Adlerian parenting
is one of many programs that can provide education and support for parents. Through an
Adlerian parenting approach (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992), parents increase self-awareness regarding
personal parenting beliefs and develop an understanding of the mistaken goals a child may use to
establish a place in the world. The purpose of this project is to review parenting styles, poverty
and the barriers to effective parenting, and the application of an Adlerian parenting approach for
those living in poverty.
Parenting Styles
Dr. Diana Baumrind was born in 1927 to a lower middle-class Jewish family in New
York (“The Diana Baumrind Biography,” n.d.). In 1948, Baumrind graduated from Hunter
College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy and psychology. She then went on to earn
her master’s and doctoral degree at University of California, Berkeley in developmental, clinical,
and social psychology. Baumrind worked as a staff psychologist at Cowell Memorial Hospital,
had her own private practice, and conducted multiple studies on parenting styles. Through her
research, Baumrind identified three main parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and
authoritative (“The Diana Baumrind Biography,” n.d.).
Baumrind (1975) conducted three studies on the effects of parenting styles. The subjects
in all three studies were: “…white, middle class, well-educated, and urbane” (p. 13). Baumrind
observed families for approximately 25 hours. Child observations included observing the child
during school and two in-home family observations. In-home family observations began a
PARENTING IN POVERTY 9
couple hours before dinner and ended a couple of hours after bedtime. Baumrind’s second study
was similar to the first; however, she observed the differences in parent-child relationships
according to the child’s gender. In addition, Baumrind selected participants from 13 different
nursery schools. Baumrind’s third study was a longitudinal study regarding the effects of
parenting styles on children as they age. Overall, Baumrind’s studies identified three main
parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative; however, a fourth parenting style
(neglectful) was later identified (Baumrind, 2005).
Authoritarian Parenting
According to Baumrind (1966, 1975) authoritarian parents are often identified as strict
parents. Gfroerer, Kern, Curlette, White, and Jonyniene (2011) stated that authoritarian parents
valued unquestioned obedience, lacked emotional warmth, and discouraged the give-and-take of
conversation. Authoritarian parents attempt to shape and control behavior and attitudes of their
children to align with personal standards. Frequently, authoritarian parents demand parental
respect and were motivated by religious beliefs. Manaster (1983) suggested that authoritarian
parents are fueled by the need to be in control, the need to be right, or the need to get attention.
Authoritarian parents operated out of feelings of inferiority and strove to obtain superiority
through the control of their children.
Authoritarian parents demonstrate firm enforcement practices and low encouragement of
autonomy (Baumrind, 1975). The children of authoritarian parents were frequently subjected to
consistent parental pressure to achieve mature and obedient behavior. As a result, these children
frequently became submissive, aimless, or rebellious. Baumrind suggested that in the beginning
years of life, power served as an effective communication or behavioral method. For example,
the authoritarian parent assured the child of his or her safety and that the child’s needs would be
PARENTING IN POVERTY 10
met. As children grew, however, continued parental control (with little to no room for child
autonomy) would spark rebellion in the child.
Permissive Parenting
Baumrind (1975) stated a permissive parent fully accepted and promoted all of the child’s
impulses, desires, and actions. Similarly, Derakhshanpoor, Khaki, Vakili, Shahini, and Saghebi
(2016) suggested permissive parents overly responded to their children, lacked boundaries, and
made little to no demands of their children. Manaster (1983) believed that permissive parents
viewed the rules of society as inhibiting, restricting, and burdensome for their children.
Manaster felt that permissive parents had a strong desire to be viewed as good parents and
peacemakers; however, Manaster thought that permissive parents felt inferior and believed they
had inadequate parenting skills. Similar to authoritarian parents, permissive parents operated out
of feelings of inferiority and strove for superiority; however, permissive parents worshipped,
rather than oppressed, their children.
Baumrind (1966) posited that permissive parents would not typically employ punitive
measures, they would tend to be less organized and see themselves as a resource for their
children. Permissive parents attempted to use reasoning, manipulation, or withdrawal of love to
get the child to comply. Permissive parents tended to use minimal discipline, had low
expectations, and provided a great deal of nurturing. According to Baumrind, children of
permissive parents typically had less social responsibility and independence. Rasmussen (2014)
stated permissive parents believed they had an appropriate parenting style but failed to see that
“love without a broader perspective on the task leads easily to indulgences and pampering—both
of which fail to prepare children for adulthood and leave children vulnerable to many adult
disappointments” (p. 110).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 11
Authoritative
Baurmrind (1966), found that authoritative parents attempted to direct the child’s
behavior with reasoning and the verbal process of encouragement. For example, authoritative
parents encourage autonomy and “set developmentally appropriate expectations but focus on
explaining the rationale for these rules with the goal of getting children to internalize the
standards of behavior rather than adhere to them out of fear of punishment” (Basset, Snyder,
Rogers, & Collins, 2013, p. 1).
According to Baumrind (1975), authoritative parents had higher levels of behavior in
firm boundary enforcement, lower levels in passive-acceptance behaviors, and high levels in
encouraging independence and individuality. An authoritative parent will set firm standards for
future behavior while supporting and encouraging the child’s current qualities (Baumrind, 1966).
Children of authoritative parents tend to be competent, achievement oriented, and socially
confident. Baumrind found that when parents combined consistent pressure on their children to
test their cognitive and social limits with encouragement and acceptance, this produced high
levels of competence in the child (Baumrind, 1975; Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001). Children
raised in authoritative homes often have greater capabilities, increased levels of success, and
more fully developed social skills (Basset et al., 2013; Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001).
Poverty
The war on poverty began in 1964 (Lamale, 1965). During that time, poverty was
defined as having no means to support subsistence (Lamale 1965; Smith et al., 2015). In this
context, means refers to the amount of income or money a person has and subsistence is the cost
to maintain survival. If means is less than the subsistence, the family, or person, is in economic
poverty. Lamale (1965) stated that in order to identify those living in poverty, a living-wage
PARENTING IN POVERTY 12
needed to be established. Living-wage is determined by minimum necessary means for physical
subsistence such as food, shelter, clothing, minimum health, decency, and minimum comfort.
Lamale found that the standard of adequate living changes radically over time and varies
depending upon location. That is, the cost variance of subsistence is based on where the family
lives, the size of the family, and the age of family members. The definition of poverty remains
the same today.
The number of families living in poverty is calculated by the American Community
Survey (ACS), an ongoing statistical survey used by the United States Census Bureau.
According to the Census Bureau website, the ACS is designed to help those in business and
leadership understand the yearly changes that take place in the country. It is the foremost source
of statistical information concerning the American people (The United States Census Bureau,
n.d.). The United States utilizes the ACS information and determines qualifying poverty lines;
however, poverty is multidimensional. For instance, inequality, social circumstances, access to
resources, and mental health should be considered when determining an individual’s level of
poverty (Smith et al., 2015).
According to the ACS, poverty was not defined at the household level but at the family
level (“American Community Survey and Puerto Rican Community Survey: 2015 Subject
Definitions,” 2015). That is, a family is poor when the total income of the family is below the
appropriate poverty threshold (line). The Johnson administration developed income-based
measures to determine poverty thresholds (Evans & Anderson, 2013). Poverty thresholds are
dollar values used regardless of other economic variables. The U.S. Census Bureau determines
the dollar amount used to establish poverty lines. Due to various family sizes, there are multiple
poverty lines. Three factors are used to determine a family or individual’s poverty status. The
PARENTING IN POVERTY 13
size of the family, the number of related children, and the age of the head of the house (for a one
or two member family) categorized as: older or younger than age 65.
Poverty statistics for the United States population include all individuals except:
institutionalized individuals, members of the military living in group quarters, people in college
dorms, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age (“American Community Survey and
Puerto Rican Community Survey: 2015 Subject Definitions,” 2015). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the poverty threshold in 2015 for an individual under the age of 65 was $12,486.
The poverty level for a family of three was set at $19,109. In 2015, ACS reported that 10.6% of
the United States population was below the poverty threshold. Additionally, 8.3% of the White
population, 21.5% of the African American population, and 20.1% of the Hispanic population
met the requirements for poverty (see Figure 1).
Poverty exists in both urban and rural areas; however, greater numbers of families living
in poverty can be found in an urban environment (Gutman, McLoyd, & Tokoyaywa, 2005).
8.3
21.5
20.1
10.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
White
African American
Hispanic
All Americans
Figure 1. Percentage of Americans living in poverty in 2015.
White African American Hispanic All Americans
PARENTING IN POVERTY 14
Gutman et al. referred to this increased poverty in one area as concentrated poverty. In areas
with concentrated poverty, families live with an increased amount of violence, drug use, gangs,
unemployment, homelessness, and less access to high quality social services and supports.
In society, poverty has been perceived as deserving or undeserving (Lee, 2016; Nunnally
& Carter, 2012). The deserving poor are individuals or families that face poverty due to
unforeseen circumstances out of the control of individuals or families. An example would be a
typically structured family suffering the death of one of the adults. For instance, poverty has not
been caused by personal decisions; therefore, individuals or families deserve attention and
support. In contrast, the undeserving poor live in poverty due to individual choices and
situations within the person’s control. An example of the undeserving poor would be when an
unmarried woman has children. The perception is that the unmarried mother chose to operate
outside of the confines of the traditional family structure and the financial assistance of a partner.
Consequently, the mother’s personal choice did not deserve attention and support.
Nunnally and Carter (2012) stated that blame-based poverty was used as a means to
explain the persistence of poverty. Lee (2016) stated that many people cannot understand why
the poor do not “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” since they are living in the land of
opportunity (p. 100). The belief is that a person just needs to try hard enough (Conger et al,
2002; Lee, 2016). Frequently, when people live in poverty, society labels the poor as lazy,
without morals, or incompetent. As a result, poor people are to blame for their situation in life
(Lee, 2016; Nunnally & Carter, 2012). Lee (2016) suggested that society viewed the
undeserving poor as people with personal and moral character flaws; therefore, the undeserving
poor would be more likely to have higher levels of unemployment and government dependency
(Lee, 2016).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 15
Three indicators strongly correlated to poverty include: income, education, and
occupational status. These indicators can work in isolation but are most often interconnected and
affect an individual or family socioeconomic status (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010). An
individual’s level of education can contribute to success as an adult; however, higher education
does not necessarily guarantee a higher socioeconomic status (Smith et al., 2015). In most cases,
higher education leads to a higher occupational status, and higher occupational status could lead
to higher income with an opportunity for a family to move out of poverty. Determination alone
will not reduce poverty (Lee, 2016). For example, Lee stated that individuals perceived as the
undeserving poor find it more difficult to connect with high quality support. The support often
involves relinquishing privacy and autonomy which can lead to intense feelings of shame and
worthlessness.
Intergenerational Poverty
While poverty itself is a physical product of poor education, low-wage jobs, racial
discrimination, lack of affordable childcare, or lack of transportation (Lee, 2016), poverty can
also become a mindset, or point of view, passed on from one generation to another (Senia,
Neppl, Gudmunson, Donnellan, & Lorenz , 2016; Shuffelton, 2013). For instance, poverty
persists across generations through attitudes, beliefs, actions, or habits of the family. Individual
characteristics, as well as family coping strategies, have a large impact on future generations
(Outley & Floyd, 2002; Smith et al., 2015). One specific poverty indicator would be the manner
in which parents cope with the stress. In contrast, social competence, goal-setting, hard work,
and emotional stability are positive indicators that reduce the likelihood of generational poverty
(Senia et al., 2016). An early childhood parental experience has an impact on how that child will
parent as an adult; therefore, creating a cycle from generation to generation (Emmen et al.,
PARENTING IN POVERTY 16
2013). A child’s family income and financial situation has a direct connection to the child’s
future financial, employment, and academic success as an adult (Conger et al., 2010).
Cultural Influences
Culture plays an important role in the experience and perception of poverty (Conger et
al., 2010; Emmen et al., 2013). For example, some cultures experience higher levels of
unemployment. In the United States, a large unemployment disparity exists between the White
community and the Hispanic and African American community. In addition, cultural views
regarding poverty and available supports vary from culture to culture (Elder et al., 1995).
Through the years, many White Americans learned they can rely on government programs and
agencies to work on their behalf. In contrast, African American and Hispanic families developed
a culture of distrust toward government agencies and programs due to experiences with these
organizations. Elder et al. (1995) and Lee (2016) found that African Americans and Hispanic
families faced racism and were required to give up a level of autonomy or privacy if they wanted
access to services.
Since most minority families feel that government agencies take away their autonomy
and will not necessarily work in their favor, African American and Hispanic families living in
poverty tend to rely on a family network and use local churches for support (Outley & Floyd,
2002). When the family network is not available, these families tend to rely on the oldest
daughter or the most responsible child. This child will become the proxy caretaker (the
substitute for a parent or caretaker) to help parents manage the home. Proxy caretakers are most
often found in single parent, low-income homes (Outley & Floyd, 2002).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 17
Children and Poverty
In 2015, the ACS determined that 20.7% of the U.S. children lived in poverty. According
to ethnic background, 12.2% of White children, 25.4% of African American children, and 30.5%
of Hispanic children lived in poverty (see Figure 2). Children in poverty are of special concern
in the United States due to the increased likelihood to experience persistent generational poverty
(Gutman et al., 2005). Children living in poverty experience higher levels of stress and
emotional trials compared to children living in middle class families (Milne & Plourde, 2006).
Economic hardship can have a negative impact on childhood development (i.e., emotional,
cognitive, behavioral, and physical) due to prolonged exposure to stress (Conger et al., 2002;
Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Evans & Anderson, 2013). High levels of long-term stress,
without stable and nurturing relationships, can reduce the development of coping strategies and
lead to unhealthy adult lifestyles (Evans & Anderson, 2013).
12.2
25.4
30.5
20.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
White
African American
Hispanic
All Children in America
Figure 2. American children living in poverty in 2015.
Percent in Poverty
PARENTING IN POVERTY 18
When children live in poverty and basic needs (i.e., food, shelter, and clothing) have not
been met, they tend to struggle in educational environments. Additionally, when children live in
poverty, they have limited access to educational resources and parents may be unable to assist
with academic homework (Mayo & Siraj, 2014; Milne & Plourde, 2006). According to Evans
and Anderson (2013), when a parent had a negative educational experience due to low-quality
education, or the parent dropped out of school, the parent experienced difficulty attempting to
assist with a child’s schoolwork. Also, when families lived in poverty, parents were unable to
afford educational help for their children (Evans & Anderson, 2013).
A combination of the parent’s potential inability to assist with school work and the
distraction of unmet basic needs, could negatively influence the child’s future in the labor market
and contribute to the perpetuation of the generational cycle of poverty (Mayo & Siraj, 2014). In
addition, parents with limited education are less likely to engage in diverse social experiences
through work or other social connections. In this situation, parents tend to create fewer socially
diverse experiences for their children (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Emmen et al., 2013). Parents
with additional education tend to seek professional assistance regarding parenting. Also, parents
with additional education may have increased access to books and other written materials that
provide parenting knowledge (Rowe, Denmark, Jones Harden, & Stapleton, 2015).
Parenting in Poverty
When families live in poverty, parents face unemployment, higher rates of relationship
conflict, and an increased risk of physical and mental health complications (Conger et al., 2010).
Primary parental concerns include financial strain, time constraints, increased stress levels, and
increased psychological distress. For example, when families find they reach the end of the
month with little to no money to meet the basic needs of the family, parents may begin to fight
PARENTING IN POVERTY 19
about money, or worry about how to meet the needs of the family, which in turn has an impact
on sleep, the ability to focus and concentrate, increased depression and anxiety symptoms (Elder
et al., 1995). When a family lives in poverty, parents need to ensure personal survival as well as
the survival of the family. Additionally, parents want to create a better future and upward
mobility for their children (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Emmen et al., 2013).
According to Gutman et al. (2005), when impoverished families exist in survival mode,
they may be forced into living in overcrowded neighborhoods, experience an increased amount
of violence, drug use, gangs, unemployment, homelessness, and less access to high quality social
services and supports. These factors create a greater risk of stress, shame, and depression in
parents (Gutman et al., 2005).
Pittman and Chase-Lansdale (2001) stated that due to the neighborhood risks, parents
determine the amount of control required to keep children safe in unsafe neighborhoods. While
increased supervision and firm parental control contributed to a decrease in behavioral concerns
in low-income families, middle-class homes experienced the opposite effect (Park & Lau, 2016;
Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001; Taylor & Roberts, 1995). The authoritarian style of parenting,
when used in combination with high levels of warmth, connection, encouragement, and
communication, can have a positive impact on children living in dangerous environments
(Anton, Jones, & Youngstom, 2015; Bartz & Levine, 1978; Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001).
Due to the increased importance of, and need for, obedience in lower-income families, children
experience difficulty when attempting to question authority figures. This difficulty may hinder
self-efficacy and self-advocacy when attempting to meet personal needs. As a result, children
develop overall feelings of frustration and powerlessness (Mayo & Siraj, 2015).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 20
Barriers to Successful Parenting
According to Smith et al. (2015), the parenting task is personal, private, intimate, and
includes significant responsibility. Parents believe the parenting role includes the ability to love,
lead, care, support, instruct, and guide children toward adulthood. Parents living in poverty feel
that the task of parenting is difficult, they feel they are on their own, and cope with significant
stress when support is difficult to find (Smith et al., 2015). The negative effect of stress has an
impact on the parent-child relationship as well as the ability to perform parenting tasks (Smith et
al., 2015; Webster-Stratton, 1990). Parents in poverty frequently deal with unemployment,
relationship decline, location inequality, and lack of emotional health. When parents must cope
with these issues, stress levels increase and create barriers to effective parenting. For example,
parents do not have enough time with their children and may experience feelings of shame
because they cannot be with them (Smith et al., 2015; Webster-Stratton, 1990).
Stress
Smith et al. (2015) suggested that parents experienced stress in multiple capacities. Some
sources of stress included feeling overwhelmed by work or unemployment, financial difficulties,
parent-child conflicts, relationship conflicts, and an attempt to hide stress from children. As a
result of high stress levels for families living in poverty, parents will make fewer demands, and
engage in less effective or irregular discipline strategies to avoid the stress of the parent and child
conflict (Milne & Plourde, 2006). The overburdened parent frequently desired periods of time
when children sat quietly and entertained themselves. Parents often achieved periods of quiet
and relaxation when they allowed children to have unregulated time with electronic devices such
as television, tablets, cell phones, or computers (Milne & Plourde, 2006; Smith et al., 2015).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 21
Family Stress Model. The Family Stress Model (FSM) was originally created to
demonstrate how economic hardship led to economic pressure which affected personal romantic
relationships (Conger et al., 2010). The FSM (see Figure 3) has since been used to demonstrate
how economic hardships (e.g., economic pressure, a caregiver’s emotional status, adult
relationship conflicts, and parenting practices and beliefs) can have an impact on a child’s
adjustment (Conger et al., 2002).
Figure 3. The Family Stress Model
Through the FSM, Conger et al. (2002) demonstrated that low income, negative financial
events (e.g., unemployment or emergency car repairs), or a combination of low income and
negative financial events, affect the level of economic hardship. The stress of economic hardship
often led to depression in parents (Conger et al., 2002; Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001). A
parent’s depressed mood was often expressed through aggressive responses (i.e., criticism,
defensiveness, and irritation towards others) or withdrawal from support (Conger et al., 2002).
The presence of anger and antagonism hindered the development of close relationships and the
application of skilled behaviors such as positive parenting practices (Conger et al., 2002; Emmen
et al., 2013). The parent’s emotional reaction to the economic stress typically spilled over into
Low income/
Negative financial
event
Economic Pressure
Parent stressed/
depressed mood
Relationship conflicts
Decline in positve
parenting practices
Child adjustment
PARENTING IN POVERTY 22
the parent-child relationship. The parent engulfed in the stress could be quick to anger or
irritability with a child. Irritability and anger could cause a significant reduction of parental
warmth, increased feelings of rejection, and hinder the ability for the parent and child to connect
(Conger et al., 2010; Conger et al., 2002; Gutman et al., 2005).
Emmen et al. (2013) suggested that early parenting practices had an impact on the
development of a child’s future parenting style. Regardless of social class or culture, early
parenting appeared to be the most significant indication of positive cognitive, social, and
emotional child development.
Culture and parenting in poverty. Minority families in poverty have the typical stress
associated with living in poverty and the added stress associated with minority populations
(Emmen et al., 2013). Children and adolescents that live in high-poverty areas are at a greater
risk for depression, behavioral concerns, early sexual activity, and lower school accomplishment;
however, these risks are often greater for minority children (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997;
Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001).
African American and Hispanic families tend to value obedience from their children
because obedience represents respect for elders. This obedience is most often achieved by an
authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind, 1972; Rowe et al., 2015). African American parents
frequently view authoritarian parenting as a necessary approach to help their children develop
adequate coping skills in the face of racism and discrimination (Outley & Floyd, 2002; Pittman
& Chase-Lansdale, 2001). Parents in poverty often adjust parenting styles according to social
class, family structure, and neighborhoods. For example, when parents lived in dangerous
neighborhoods, they believed a stricter parenting style was needed (Anton et al., 2015).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 23
Neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods tend to be dangerous, overcrowded, have low
quality schools, and limited resources (Pittman & Chase-Lansdale, 2001). In spite of a
supportive and authoritative parenting style, when children are overwhelmed with fear, it can
affect a child’s ability to trust and form relationships with others. These factors tend to increase
the neighborhood stress and decrease the likelihood of families becoming involved in positive
experiences within their neighborhoods (Gutman et al., 2005).
Neighborhood conditions can increase the likelihood of social isolation, poor romantic
relationship prospects, inconsistent employment, increased likelihood of illegal income
opportunities, and unstable homes (Outley & Floyd, 2002; Wilson 1987). Parents may believe
they must limit the amount of autonomy in a child’s decision making to keep the child safe. The
limits regarding autonomy could lead to feelings of isolation and a child may search for
connection with friends in other areas in the neighborhood (Outley & Floyd, 2002). As a result,
parents may increase control and attempt to choose friends for the child. Frequently, parents
attempt to steer children away from unwanted friends and replace them with prosocial friends.
Unfortunately, parents living in poverty may not have the time to adequately screen a child’s
friends (Anton et al., 2015; Outley & Floyd, 2002).
Time
Milne and Plourde (2006) posited that all parents attempted to spend as much time as
possible engaging in activities and conversations with their children; however, parents living in
poverty tend to have less time with their children because more time is devoted to managing the
family’s financial hardship (Milne & Plourde, 2006). In addition to time devoted to working,
relationship conflicts interfere with the amount of time parents spend with their children.
Relationship conflicts tend to create stress and inconsistent behavior in the adult. The stress of
PARENTING IN POVERTY 24
the relationship conflict contributes to the parent’s inability to provide consistent quality time
and attention with the child. Because of this conflict, parents may experience an increase in
feelings of depression and shame (Milne & Plourde, 2006).
Shame
Milne and Plourde (2006) found that parents living in poverty exhibited an overwhelming
sense of doubt about their capabilities as a parent. Overall, Romagnoli and Wall (2012) found
that when parents lived in poverty, they experienced intensified pressure to ensure their children
had a positive outcome in life. This pressure led to feelings of shame and worthlessness when
parents felt they were unable to give their children the best opportunities to succeed.
Additionally, parents felt a sense of guilt and inadequacy when a child failed to meet societal,
social, and academic expectations (Romagnoli & Wall, 2012). According to Romagnoli and
Wall, public scrutiny, as well as other mothers, contributed to this sense of inadequacy. Through
a competitive view of child rearing, some mothers believed they had a child that was
academically, socially, or behaviorally superior to other children in the community. This public
scrutiny is difficult for parents when they live in poverty because economic circumstances and
work obligations can get in the way of parental involvement and lead to feelings of inadequacy
(Elder et al., 1995; Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).
Individual Psychology
Alfred Adler was born near Vienna to a Jewish family during the mid-19th century. He
was ill as a child and witnessed his younger brother die (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Adler’s
early life experiences led him to become a doctor. He received a degree in ophthalmology but
switched to internal medicine where he observed several patients struggle with ailments
PARENTING IN POVERTY 25
connected to the patient’s social environment. In some cases, Adler found that physical ailments
influenced the patient’s choice of profession and social atmosphere.
Adler began to connect his observations to the realm of psychology. In 1902, Adler
joined Freud, and other noted psychoanalysts, to discuss Freudian theory (Mosak & Maniacci,
1999). At first, Adler tried to maintain Freudian thought; however, Adler’s foundational
assumptions significantly differed from Freud’s. Because of these differences, Adler decided to
leave Freud’s group to continue to grow his own theory. Adler began to hypothesize about the
significance of relationships and the importance of connection to community.
Over the course of his life, Adler created what is now called Individual Psychology
(Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Individual Psychology is a theory that focuses on the whole person.
According to Carlson, Watts, and Maniacci (2005), Adler believed that a person should be
viewed holistically (i.e., an indivisible being that cannot be divided into component parts). Adler
believed it was important to view the person, his or her environment, social context, education,
and beliefs to fully understand an individual’s experience. In Individual Psychology, holism
refers to Adler’s view of the entire person. For instance, holism implies that “the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts and that, unified, the parts constitute a new and unique whole”
(Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 55). According to Mosak and Maniacci (1999), Adler believed that
psychology was not about the individual parts of the person. Psychology was how the person
chose to assemble those parts and how the person would learn to cope and manage life. The
individual’s lifestyle would be the manner in which a person assembles his or her individual
parts.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 26
Lifestyle
According to Ansbacher and Ansbacher (1956), a person develops an identity, creatively
assembles the parts of that identity, and then creates the whole person and his or her lifestyle.
The lifestyle drives an individual toward the goal of successfully relating to the world. Griffith
and Powers (2007), posited that lifestyle is a unity of movement that included thoughts, feelings,
and actions. Adler suggested that lifestyle was the key to how external data was analyzed,
stored, and used within a person. For instance, lifestyle dictated a person’s behavior in a given
situation and was most clearly seen when a person faced challenges in life (Mosak & Maniacci,
1999).
Mosak and Maniacci (1999) stated that lifestyle is “…the attitudinal set of an individual.
The set of convictions people develop that directs how they will belong. It is composed of four
component parts: self-concept, self-ideal, Weltbild, and ethical convictions” (Mosak & Maniacci,
1999, p. 174).
Self-concept. Mosak and Maniacci (1999) explained self-concept using the words I am.
For example, self-concept refers to an individual’s current personal convictions and beliefs.
Griffith and Powers (2007) stated that self-concept can also be identified as self-esteem, and it is
the personal and internal estimate or image of oneself. When developing self-concept, a person
measures themselves against his or her social surroundings. A person determines whether he or
she feels inferior and of less value than others, or, if he or she is useful and able to develop social
interest (Griffith & Powers, 2007; Mosak & Maniacci, 1999).
Self-ideal. In contrast to self-concept, self-ideal is rooted in a person’s feeling of
belonging and significance in connection to others and can be understood as I should (Mosak &
Maniacci, 1999). For instance, self-ideal involves hopes, dreams, and creation of the future.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 27
That is, the self-ideal moves people forward. On the other hand, self-ideal could also discourage
forward movement if people believe they should be more engaged.
Weltbild. Adler used the term weltbild when he referred to the opinions that people form
about the world around them (Mosak & Maniacci 1999). The opinions are best captured by
statements such as people are, and the world is. Weltbild is based on the internal judgments
individuals make about the outside world.
Ethical convictions. The final component used to develop an individual’s lifestyle is
ethical convictions (Mosak & Maniacci 1999). Ethical convictions provide direction of
movement regarding personal beliefs about right and wrong. Ethical convictions begin at home
and continue to grow and take shape through personal interactions at school, with friends, and
religion. Additionally, ethical convictions inform an individual about the consequences of
behavior.
Carlson et al. (2005) stated that when a child is born they are passive responders but soon
become actively engaged with the world around them. The child takes in information, actively
assigns meaning to the information, and applies the meaning to the world. Beginning in infancy,
a child will directly or indirectly train a caretaker to provide the infant’s desired response.
Mosak and Maniacci (1999) stated that Adler believed a child is both the receiver and the creator
of his or her world. In reference to this concept, Adler stated people are both the picture and the
artist.
Final Fictive Goal
Lifestyle is driven by the final fictive goal, which is a person’s long-term personality goal
(Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). The final fictive goal is typically nonconscious, nonverbal, and
often times the person is unaware of the goal. Goals are developed as a child attempts to create
PARENTING IN POVERTY 28
meaning and purpose around events and experiences (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Fictional goals
are unique to each individual, subjective, and specific regarding what must be achieved in order
to achieve a sense of significance or belonging. Fictional goals are designed to help the child
move through, and make sense of, the world around them. (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Final
fictive goals are developed from a person’s private logic (Carlson et al., 2005). Private logic is a
line of reasoning that is both private and unique to the individual. Private logic drives an
individual’s behavior (Griffith & Powers, 2007).
Movement
Griffith and Powers (2005) stated Individual Psychology includes two planes of
movement: vertical and horizontal. Vertical movement is based on the goal of self-elevation and
is driven by competitive striving. The vertical plane reflects feelings of superiority, inferiority,
and compensation. The second type of movement is horizontal movement. Horizontal
movement occurs through confidence, growth, and social interest. People view others as equal,
with a focus on mutual respect, or community feeling. Griffith and Powers suggested that when
individuals are engaged in horizontal movement, they would not view others as superior or
inferior. People who have horizontal goals focus on the improvement of the group instead of
individual desires.
Social Interest
Mosak and Maniacci (1999) stated that Adler’s community feelings, or social interest,
involved interest in others, emotional bonding, and responsible attitudes and behaviors.
According to Ansbacher and Ansbacher (1956), social interest is an innate potentiality that needs
to be developed. The in-born piece of social interest is subjective and depends on how the child
views and interprets his or her environment. Social interest can only be taught through personal
PARENTING IN POVERTY 29
experiences in the midst of life. Mosak and Maniacci (1999) stated the development of social
interest begins between mother and child. The bonding between a mother and child is reciprocal
(e.g., the child fills the needs of the mother, and the mother fills the needs of the child; therefore,
the mother-child relationship is the first opportunity to cultivate social interest. Additionally, the
mother sets the expectation for social development in the child (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956).
Courage and Encouragement
Courage and encouragement are major tenants of Individual Psychology. According to
Griffith and Powers (2007), courage is the most important aspect in the ability to adapt in life.
Courage is the willingness to act in line with social interest and operate on the useful side of life.
People who have courage have the strength to face their imperfections and develop the courage
to be imperfect. The courage to be imperfect helps people adapt to changes in life by allowing
people to feel safe and able to take risks.
Mosak and Maniacci (1999), stated that there are many factors in life that can cause
discouragement. Discouragement on the social and family level, includes war, poverty, parental
expectations, and sibling competition. An encouraged person has the confidence of self to
manage life. One way to build encouragement would be to encourage others. Carlson et al.
(2005) explained that encouragement is not only an attitude toward life, but also a way of being.
People who are encouraged do not see the world as a hostile place and are willing to take risks.
Failing would not threaten self-concept or self-ideal. Encouragement builds hope and has a
focus on an individual’s success and strengths.
Individual Psychology and Parenting
According to Mosak and Maniacci (1999), Adler found pampering and neglect to be the
two most troubling parenting styles. Mosak and Maniacci stated that Adler believed that doing
PARENTING IN POVERTY 30
too much, or not enough, for a child could have serious effects. According to Mosak and
Manniacci, Adler felt that pampered children could become irresponsible and unable to learn
from consequences. Overall, Adler understood that a child’s behavior was influenced by
parenting styles as well as a child’s perception of the parenting style. This understanding led to
Adler’s belief that a pampering parent had a greater negative impact on the child than a
neglectful parent. This is due to both the objective and subjective nature of pampering. On the
parent’s part, pampering is objective and a reflection of the parent’s character. For the child,
pampering is subjective in how the child views the parent’s behavior. Mosak and Manniacci
stated Adler found that when parents completed the tasks children could complete on their own,
the pampered children would often feel neglected when others did not serve or take care of them.
On the other hand, Adler believed that not all neglected children felt neglected. For instance,
children from the depression era did not notice most of what they lacked at that time.
Adlerian parenting is primarily driven by equality, social interest, and encouragement
(Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Adlerian parenting aligns with the authoritative or democratic style of
parenting. Dreikurs said “Democracy is not just a political view but a way of life” (Dreikurs &
Soltz, 1992, p. 7). That is, American society is founded on democracy and equality, and that
equality is extended to our children. Dreikurs suggested that a family is a wagon, and every
family member is a wheel on the wagon. For the wagon to move forward, all the wheels need to
work together. Dreikurs felt that each family member had equal rights within the family. He
was not suggesting that everyone was the same, or identical; however, everyone had the same
right to dignity, respect, and independent choices. Dreikurs stated that equality brought about an
individual sense of freedom. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) remarked that people cannot have
freedom without respecting the freedom of others. People have the freedom of action; however,
PARENTING IN POVERTY 31
if they do not operate within the confines of that freedom, they risk losing that freedom.
Dreikurs compared freedom to driving a car. For example, a person is free to drive a car, but an
individual that does not respect the driving laws and restrictions will not be allowed to continue
to drive. Dreikurs pointed out that freedom comes with order, and people cannot be free if order
is not followed. Dreikurs believed that order is created to benefit many, and maintaining order
benefits society.
Adlerian parenting is not unrestricted freedom for children (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992).
Democratic, or Adlerian parenting, involves an understanding that just like the parents, children
have the right to make choices. The primary characteristic of Adlerian parenting is respect.
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) explained that equality in the family meant that every family member
held a different role within the family and had the right to be respected in that role. Equality did
not mean that children are able to be adults. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) posited that from birth,
children learn, grow, and become independent. It is the parent’s role to train the child to meet
the tasks of life with confidence in his or her own ability. Adlerian parenting focuses on how to
foster autonomy in a child as well as train the child to use that autonomy in a socially interested
capacity (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992).
Encouragement is a primary tool for democratic parents. Parents use encouragement to
promote the child’s autonomy. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) referred to encouragement as a
continuous process that gives the child a sense of self-respect and accomplishment. Dreikurs
believed that starting at birth, a child needs help to find a place in the world. Children naturally
have an immense amount of courage and they attempt to do what adults do. Driekurs stated that
every day, children learn new things and grow to become autonomous people capable of making
personal choices in life. Because parents have a strong desire to protect children, it can be
PARENTING IN POVERTY 32
difficult to allow a child to make decisions. Dreikurs believed that when parents try to protect
children from the world, it is a disservice to children. The first disservice is that every time an
adult steps in to protect a child from the world, the adult sends the message that the child is
incapable of taking on the world. The second disservice, related to protecting a child from the
world, could be that the child develops the mistaken belief that he or she must be taken care of at
all times. This unrealistic expectation sets the child up for a future of disappointments. Dreikurs
said “that unless children learn to tolerate pain, bumps, bangs, and discomforts, they will live
with a serious handicap. We cannot protect our children from life” (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992, p.
51). In addition, Dreikurs posited that it requires a great deal of courage to express parental love
by encouraging a child to become independent. Specifically, a parent would need to have faith
that the child could make choices for his or her life.
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) stated that encouraging parents are consistent, firm, and
maintain order. Additionally, Dreikurs suggested that children feel increased security and
freedom to explore if they have the safety of routine and order. Dreikurs felt that it was the role
of the parents to establish a comfortable family routine. When establishing order in the home,
parental consistency and firmness establish and maintain limitations and boundaries to help the
child feel safety and freedom to explore the world. According to Dreikurs, a dominating adult
imposed his or her will on a child, and a passive adult would set few boundaries and the child
dictates what takes place within the family. Firmness requires balance between dominance and
passivity. Dreikurs stated that mutual respect is the way to find the balance between dominance
and passivity. The parent respects the right of the child to do what they choose as long as it is
not dangerous. Logical and natural consequences supply the necessary information for the child
to learn.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 33
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) assumed that the greatest form of parental encouragement
occurred when parents believed a child could manage whatever came his or her way. Dreikurs
felt that it was the parent’s sense of superiority over a child that made them think the child was
too little, or too young, to solve problems or handle frustrations. This belief should be
exchanged for the belief that the child is capable of handling life at the child’s own pace. The
acknowledgement of this belief allows the child to experience his or her own strengths. Dreikurs
hypothesized that empowered children would develop the necessary strength and courage to
meet the demands of adult life.
Democratic parenting educates and guides children to democratic social living (Dreikurs
& Soltz, 1992). When children are raised within a system of rewards and punishments, children
expect rewards and act out to punish the parents. If the parents punish the child, the child will
retaliate in some manner to punish the parent. Dreikurs felt that often times these children
become tyrants and make undue demands on the family. Dreikurs said that “Tyrants have no
social function” (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992, p. 170). Dreikurs spoke about promoting social
interest and how a child’s good behavior stems from the desire to belong and usefully contribute
to the family. He suggested that promoting social interest could replace rewards and
punishments. For example, the motivation for a child to complete his or her chores should be
founded on the desire to contribute to the family’s welfare and not on the desire to receive an
allowance or the fear of being punished. Dreikurs felt that satisfaction came from a sense of
contribution and participation, and parents often deny this satisfaction when they use a reward
and punishment system.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 34
Goals of Misbehavior
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) believed that children want to feel a sense of belonging. When
a child feels that he or she belongs and can maintain courage in life, the child will present with
fewer problems; however, when children do not feel like they belong, they become discouraged.
When children are discouraged their sense of belonging turns from social interest to searching
for self-realization from others. This searching for self-realization from others will prompt
children to behave in a manner that will bring them the desired sense of belonging. Bettner
(2014) believed that if a child’s courage is underdeveloped, it will lead to a limited sense of
belonging. If a sense of belonging is unobtainable in a positive way, the child will choose a
mistaken behavior in an effort to belong. Dreikurs introduced four goals of misbehavior that
include: undue attention, the struggle for power, retaliation and revenge, and complete
discouragement. Dreikurs stated that children naturally move from one stage of mistaken goals
to another. That is, children begin with undue attention, move to power struggle, to retaliation
and revenge, and then end with complete inadequacy or discouragement. Bettner (2014) stated
that adults can identify what goal of misbehavior a child is operating in based on how the adult
feels when working with the child.
Undue attention. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) believed that undue attention was the first
mistaken goal used by discouraged children to help them feel a sense of belonging. In this
mistaken goal, the child has the belief that they belong only if he or she is the center of attention.
Consequently, the child will develop attention-getting mechanisms. Dreikurs said that children
are capable of developing multiple ways of getting undue attention. In addition, Dreikurs posited
that encouraged children are able to recognize the need for an adult to attend to another task, but
discouraged children believe that the parent has forgotten about them unless the parent is with
PARENTING IN POVERTY 35
the child. Dreikurs stated that when children operate in undue attention, they will begin by using
charming methods to get attention. If those methods fail, the child will resort to negative
methods. For example, the child may whine, tease, drag their feet, or write on walls. Dreikurs
believed that when parents give in to a child’s demands for undue attention, parents reinforce an
incorrect self-concept and increase the belief that belonging is accomplished by using undue
attention.
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) and Bettner (2014) stated that an adult could identify a child
operating in undue attention. If the adult is feeling annoyed and asks the child to stop his or her
behavior, and the child complies, this would be a strong indicator that the child is operating in
undue attention. Frequently, when a child discontinues the annoying behavior, another behavior
will be used to get the same results. Bettner confirmed that all children need attention; however,
when children are operating in undue attention, no amount of attention will be enough. Dreikurs
stated an observing adult must consider the entire situation. An example of undue attention
would be when the adult begins to notice a tendency to give a child attention because the child
asks for it. The key to recognizing undue attention would be to consider the needs of the entire
situation. That is, undue attention may be at play when the adult takes a step back, observes, and
notices that the adult and child actions (and responses) are outside the needs of the situation.
Power. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) stated the second goal of misbehavior is the struggle
for power. The struggle for power comes after the adult has forcibly stopped the child’s demand
for undue attention. Bettner (2014) stated that when children do not feel or see an improvement
in respect, independence, and competency, they become more discouraged. Bettner and Dreikurs
found that as children become more discouraged, they switch from undue attention to power
struggle in an effort to defeat parents and gain a sense of belonging. Dreikurs stated that the
PARENTING IN POVERTY 36
child frequently experiences a great deal of satisfaction when refusing to carry out parental
requests.
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) and Bettner (2014) believed that parents could identify when a
child was operating in the struggle for power because the parent would feel angry and the anger
would fuel the power struggle. For instance, the parent begins to feel that they must win or
others will view them as bad parents unable to control their children. Dreikurs stated that
children operating in the struggle for power believe that if they submit to a stronger power they
would lose their sense of value. Dreikurs also felt that when parents are dealing with children
operating in the struggle for power, the parent becomes so overwhelmed that they end up using
brute force to strong arm the child into complying with their demands. Once a parent uses force,
the parent is declaring emotional bankruptcy and is communicating to the child that no other
options exist but to use superior size and strength to gain compliance. The child knows that the
adult has nothing left, and the child wins the struggle for power. The outward pain from parental
punishment pales in comparison to securing the power in that moment.
Dreikurs and Solz (1992) and Bettner (2014) believed that when parents noticed feelings
of anger, the anger signaled the beginning of a power struggle between the parent and child.
When parents recognize anger, parents should end the discussion, walk away, and refuse to fight
or engage in a power struggle in an effort to diffuse the situation (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs &
Soltz, 1992). When a child is operating in a power struggle, words have little power and parental
action is the best way to respond. Dreikurs and Bettner suggested some parents may view
walking away as apathy; however, the parent is actively making a firm decision. That being
said, there is a difference between firmness and domination (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz,
1992). Parental domination occurs when parents attempt to force their will on the child. In
PARENTING IN POVERTY 37
contrast, when a parent is firm, anger is removed, and the parent will calmly explain what he or
she will do as opposed to telling the child how to behave.
Revenge. The third mistaken goal of behavior is revenge and stems from the increasing
exacerbation of the power struggle (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Dreikurs believed that revenge
(and retaliation) developed when the parent and child continued to struggle for power and the
parent and child attempt to subdue each other. Due to the increasing discouragement within the
child, he or she will often attempt revenge and retaliation to purposely wound the parent. Bettner
(2014) stated that revenge and retaliation was connected to the need for significance. For
example, children feel they have no power and the only recourse would be to hurt the person that
hurt them. Additionally, Bettner believed that retaliation and revenge was connected to the
child’s perception of events.
When parents feel hurt because of the child, this would be a signal to parents that a child
is operating out of revenge (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Dreikurs and Bettner
believed that when children operated out of revenge or retaliation, they believe they are
unlikeable or bad. Consequently, the child’s actions promote this perception in others, and
parental punishment convinces the child that retaliation and revenge are necessary as a form of
protection. As a result, children who need encouragement are less likely to receive it due to the
ability to hurt and push people away. Dreikurs believed that it takes genuine parental
understanding and acceptance to help the child discover that he or she is likeable and
worthwhile.
Complete inadequacy. According to Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) the fourth mistaken goal
of misbehavior is complete inadequacy or complete discouragement. Dreikurs believed that in
this stage, children feel they have no chance to succeed (by either useful or useless means).
PARENTING IN POVERTY 38
Completely discouraged children become helpless, unmotivated, and avoid any activity where
potential failure exists. Completely discouraged children feel worthless (and worry that others
will discover how worthless they are), wish to stay hidden, do not seek attention, put up a fight,
or seek revenge (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Frequently, when a child is completely
discouraged, a parent will feel discouraged as well.
The Crucial Cs
Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) believed that awareness of the four goals of misbehavior
provided parents an opportunity to help their children. Dreikurs stated “Under no circumstances
is there anything to be gained by telling the child what we suspect may be his mistaken goal.
This could be most damaging” (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992, p. 64). Dreikurs believed the goals of
misbehavior are an unconscious action the child most often does not recognize. Dreikurs stated
that the awareness of mistaken goals should be used to promote parental action and not as a
lecture or weapon aimed at the child. Bettner (2014) believed the Crucial Cs could be used to
counteract the goals of misbehavior. The Crucial Cs are connected to one of the four goals of
misbehavior and include: connected, capable, count, and courage.
Connected. Bettner (2014) believed connection was the missing piece for a child seeking
undue attention. Bettner suggested that when children seek undue attention, they do not have a
sense of belonging or feel connected to those around them. When a parent ignored a child
seeking undue attention, and offered attention when the child was behaving, the parent
reinforced useful behavior (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). Additionally, parents can
connect with the child by creating opportunities for the child to contribute to the family. For
example, parents can allow the child to help with meals, complete household chores, or choose a
game to play. Parents can also determine how the child bests receives love. The opportunity to
PARENTING IN POVERTY 39
contribute to the family will improve connection between the parent and child. As the child feels
more connected, the undue attention seeking will diminish.
Capable. Bettner (2014) believed that there are two types of power: positive and
negative. Bettner suggested that positive power was the ability to master a task or contribute to
social interest. In contrast, negative power was an attempt to control others. Bettner found that
when children were allowed to feel and know that they count (and that their opinion and voices
matter), it replaced the power struggle. Bettner stated that the first step toward the elimination of
a power struggle took place when parents recognized and understood the role they played in that
power struggle. Parents can create an atmosphere where the child feels capable of making
choices. In addition to allowing the child to make choices throughout the day, parents must
respect the child’s choices as long as they are not dangerous. As a result, the parent allows
natural and logical consequences. Bettner explained that the child does not have control of the
family, rather, the child has control over personal choices. Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) believed
that when children feel capable, and parents teach them how to assess a situation, parents
promote both self-interest and social interest.
Count. When a child is operating in revenge and retaliation, Bettner (2014) believed the
child needed to realize that they count. Bettner thought that children operating out of revenge
often felt powerless and insignificant, so they chose to hurt their parents. Punishment served to
reinforce feelings of insignificance and the belief that the child was unlovable; therefore, the best
way to overcome this mistaken goal was to help the child feel as though they count and increase
the child’s sense of belonging and capability (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992).
Additionally, a warm and close relationship to an adult was an effective means to overcome
goals of misbehavior.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 40
Courage. When a child feels inadequate and discouraged, parents can build the child’s
courage (Bettner, 2014). Deikurs and Soltz (1992) believed that completely discouraged
children do not want to fail, or be perceived as worthless, and would rather be labeled as lazy or
dumb. When children give up on themselves, they engage in behaviors that encourage others to
give up on them as well. Dreikurs stated it was the parent’s job to build the child’s courage by
focusing on the child’s strengths and efforts. Encouragement is the greatest tool for a parent
hoping to help a child (Bettner, 2014; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992).
Discussion
When therapists work with children in therapy, therapists will work with the family
system because all family members own a part of the problem and a part of the solution. While
the therapist is working with the child, it is helpful to work with the parents to improve the entire
family situation.
Implications for Practice
While the child is in therapy, the therapist should meet with the parent, or parents, at least
once a month to provide an update regarding the child’s progress and receive additional
information. Parents living in poverty often deal with varying degrees of discouragement which
are created by the high levels of stress due to financial strain and residing in unsafe
neighborhoods while raising children. Parenting sessions could be designed to affect the family
system. First, the therapist will support and encourage parents and let them know they are not
alone. Second, information would be presented in a monthly verbal exchange where parents
receive practical information that they could easily incorporate into their busy lives. Educational
parent sessions regarding Adlerian parenting concepts (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992), along with
PARENTING IN POVERTY 41
therapeutic support and encouragement, could contribute to successful and effective parenting
when families live in poverty (see Appendix A).
The proposed parent sessions will cover a range of topics such as parenting styles
(Baumrind, 1975), the four goals of misbehavior (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992), and the Crucial Cs
(Bettner, 2014). These concepts could be easily introduced and foster a positive parent-child
relationship. Parents are educated on one concept per month (rather than weekly) in an effort to
reduce the potential for additional stress. Finally, the information would be easily applied and
implemented through the use of handouts and therapeutic support. After the first four parent
sessions, the session time would be reduced from an hour and a half to one hour. Parents would
receive continued support and encouragement from the therapist and continue to meet to obtain
updates concerning the child.
Intake. The first two parent meetings would be the intake sessions. The therapist would
provide informed consent and information concerning the therapeutic practice, provide
information regarding parent and child sessions along with an overview of the monthly update
and parent education session. The therapist, parents, and child would participate in a diagnostic
assessment. After the diagnostic assessment is complete, the therapist, parents, and child would
create a therapeutic treatment plan.
Parent session one. During the first parent session, parents and therapists will check in
and provide mutual updates regarding the child’s progress at home and in therapy. At this time,
the therapist begins to establish a relationship with the parents. The therapist will ask about the
current family atmosphere and how family members relate to each other. Specifically, the
therapist will ask questions regarding disagreements and family relationship dynamics. The
therapist will ask the parents about a typical day—beginning when the first person wakes up, and
PARENTING IN POVERTY 42
ending with when the last person to go to bed. By asking these questions, the therapist has the
ability to understand the perceived roles of all family members. The therapist will ask parents to
talk about significant childhood family memories around the age of about 12 or 13. This
question helps the therapist identify the parent’s private logic regarding parenting (Walton,
1998). After gathering the parent’s most memorable observation, the therapist will then talk to
the parent about how this memory influenced the parenting style. After this discussion, the
therapist will introduce the three main types of parenting styles and the effect of each style on
children. Lastly, the therapist will discuss Adlerian parenting (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992) and how
it promotes the democratic authoritarian style of parenting. The therapist will suggest the
possibility of how democratic authoritarian parenting could help improve the child’s behavior.
At the end of the first session, the therapist will provide an opportunity for questions.
Parent session two. The second parent session will begin by checking in with the
parents to see how things are going at home. The parents and therapist review information from
the previous session. The majority of the second session will be educating parents about the four
goals of misbehavior (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992). The therapist facilitates parental understanding
of what each goal might look like when a child may be operating in one of the four goals of
misbehavior. Parents will be instructed how to identify each of the four goals of misbehavior in
terms of the parent’s reaction to the child. The therapist will provide a list of the goals outlining
how the four goals of misbehavior could make the parent feel. The therapist will ask parents to
observe the child, and parental thoughts and feelings, in an effort to determine the child’s goal of
misbehavior. The second session will end with a review of the session and time for questions.
Parent session three. The third parent session will focus on the Crucial Cs (Bettner,
2014). The session will begin with the check-in. After the check-in, the therapist and the parents
PARENTING IN POVERTY 43
review the parental observations regarding the four goals of misbehavior. The parents and the
therapist discuss the child’s goal of misbehavior and how the child may be operating out of this
goal. After this discussion, the therapist will introduce and educate parents about the Crucial Cs
(Bettner, 2014). The therapist will explain the importance of the four Cs and how they connect
with one of the goals of misbehavior. Parents will receive a handout (see Appendix B) outlining
the four goals of misbehavior, how the parent feels during each of the goals of misbehavior, and
which Crucial C to implement with a particular goal. The therapist will ask the parents to
consider how they implement the Crucial Cs in their home. The session will conclude with a
review of the session and time for final questions.
Parent session four. The fourth parent session will focus on the implementation of the
Crucial Cs (Bettner, 2014). The therapist will review what was discussed during the last session,
discuss the parent’s observations regarding the Crucial Cs, and check in with the parents to
determine how things are going overall. The main goal of this session is for the parents and the
therapist to brainstorm how they might incorporate the Crucial Cs in the home. An example of
this brainstorming might include a discussion about how parents could discover when the child
feels loved, and then, purposely do things that foster connection and speak to the child. To help
a child feel capable, parents might give the child jobs around the house, or allow the child to
create their own schedule regarding bedtime, homework, or morning routines. Parents can help a
child know that he or she counts by asking the child’s opinion regarding how to solve a problem
the child or family may be experiencing. Restoring a child’s courage can be one of the most
challenging tasks. Parents can help a child restore courage by noticing the child, providing
specific words of encouragement, presenting simple tasks that can be accomplished, and
providing support and encouragement around accomplishments. Brainstorming with the parents
PARENTING IN POVERTY 44
allows the therapist the opportunity to determine how parents perceive the family, to determine
current parental stress, and understand what activities parents believe they can fit into their
schedules.
Ongoing parent check-in sessions. After the four initial parent sessions, parents should
be well equipped with practical knowledge that will help them improve the way they relate to
their child. As the sessions continue, it is important for the therapist to provide continued
support and encouragement. As parents gain mastery in the aforementioned areas, the therapist
can use other information that will address the parent’s ongoing concerns. The therapist may
introduce the parents to additional Adlerian concepts to assist parents in the implementation and
enforcement of boundaries and routines.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this project was to provide an overview of the impact of poverty on
effective parenting. In addition, Adlerian parenting (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992) was discussed as a
means to help parents balance stress associated with living in poverty and the demands of
parenting. Additional research could be conducted to determine how diverse family cultures
view parenting. While research exists regarding poverty, additional research could determine
how Adlerian parenting (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1992) might promote effective parenting skills for
families living in poverty. Research could include parental self-reporting regarding the
understanding of parenting styles, goals of mistaken behavior, and the Crucial Cs.
Researchers could determine the effectiveness of parent sessions (such as the one
outlined in this paper) by completing pre-and post-analysis of the parent’s identified problems.
Research could include focus groups with parents living in poverty to determine how therapists
may best be able to assist them with the previously identified stressors associated with parenting
PARENTING IN POVERTY 45
while living in poverty. Research regarding the use of Adlerian parenting (Dreikurs & Soltz,
1992), how it is implemented, and how it is received in other cultures, would promote further
education and concrete data in area of Adlerian therapy. There continues to be much to learn,
and many ways to continue to grow, in the understanding of individual, cultural, and
socioeconomic factors that have an impact on effective parenting while living in poverty.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 46
References
American community survey and Puerto Rico community survey: 2015 subject definitions
[Handbook]. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R.,R. (Eds.). (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler:
A systematic presentation in selections from his writings. New York, N.Y: Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc.
Anton, M. T., Jones, D. J., & Youngstom, E. A. (2015). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and
externalizing problems in African American single-mother homes: A person-oriented
approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 405-415. doi: 10.1037/fam0000086
Bartz, K.W., & Levine, E.S. (1978). Childrearing by black parents: A description and comparison
to Anglo and Chicano parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40(4), 709-719.
Bassett, J. F., Snyder, T. L., Rogers, D. T., & Collins, C. L. (2013). Permissive, authoritarian,
and authoritative instructors: Applying the concept of parenting styles to the college
classroom. Individual Differences Research, 11(1), 1-11.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some
Black-White comparisons. Child Development, 43(1), 262-267. doi: 10.1111/1467-
8624.ep12356078
Baumrind, D. (1975). The contributions of the family to the development of competence in
children. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 14, 12-37.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 47
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(108) 61-69.
Bettner, B. L. (2014). The six essential pieces of the parenting puzzle. Anaheim, CA: Creative
Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J. Britto, P.B., & Brady, C. (1999). Struggling to make ends meet: Poverty in
child development. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in non-
traditional families (pp. 280-303). New York, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Carlson, J., Watts, R.E., & Maniacci, M. (2006). Adlerian therapy: Theory and practice.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes
and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685-704. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x.
Conger, R.D., & Donnellan, M.B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic
context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, (58), 175-199.
Conger, R.D., Wallace, L.E., Sun, Y., McLoyd, V.C., & Brody, G. H. (2002). Economic pressure
in African Americans families: A replication and extension of the family stress model.
Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 179-193.
Derakhshanpoor, F., Khaki, S., Vakili, M.A., Shahini, N., & Saghebi, S.A. (2016). A survey of
the relationship between mental health with parenting styles in mothers of children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Fundamentals of Mental Health, 18(3), 151-155.
The Diana Baumrind biography [Web article]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.positive-
parenting-ally.com/diana-baumrind.html#baumrind-biography
PARENTING IN POVERTY 48
Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. (1992). Children the challenge. New York, NY: Plume. Original work
published 1964.
Duncan, G.J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Elder, G.H., Eccles J.S., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. (1995). Inner-city parents under economic
pressure: Perspectives on strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
57(3), 771-784.
Emmen, R.A.G., Malda, M., Mesman, J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Prevoo, M.J.L., & Yeniad, N.
(2013). Socioeconomic status and parenting in ethnic minority families: Testing a
minority family stress model. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(6), 896-904.
Evans, S., & Anderson, W. (2013). Demetrio’s story: Socialization and family adjustments based
on long-term immersion in a culture of poverty. Children & Schools, 35(4), 244-247.
Gfroerer, K.P., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W.L., White, J., & Jonyniene, J. (2011). Parenting style
and personality perceptions of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. The Journal of
Individual Psychology, 67(1), 57-73.
Griffith, J., & Powers, R.L. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian Psychology: 106 terms associated
with the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. Port Townsend, WA: Adlerian
Psychology Associates, Ltd.
Gutman, L.M., McLoyd, V.C., & Tokoyawa, T. (2005). Financial strain, neighborhood stress,
parenting behaviors, and adolescent adjustment in urban African American families.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(4), 425-449.
Lamale, H. H. (1965). Poverty: The world and the reality. Monthly Labor Review, 88(6), 822-
827.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 49
Lee, J.A. (2016). Poverty, dignity, and public housing. Columbia Human Rights Law Review,
47(2), 97-157.
Manaster, G.J. (1983). Faulty parenting types and personality types. Individual Psychology: The
Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research, & Practice, 39(2), 200-208.
Mayo, A., & Siraj, I. (2014). Parenting practices and children’s academic success in low-ses
families. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), 47-63. doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.995160
Milne, A., & Plourde, L.A. (2006). Factors of a low-ses household what aids academic
achievement? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 183-193.
Mosak, H., & Maniacci, M. (1999). A primer of Adlerian psychology: The analytic, behavioral,
cognitive psychology of Alfred Adler. New York, New York: Routledge.
Nunnally, S.C., & Carter, N.M. (2012). Moving from victims to victors: African American
attitudes on the “culture of poverty” and Black blame. Journal of African American
Studies, 16(3), 423-455 doi:10.1007/s12111-011-9197-7
Outley, C.W., & Floyd, M.F. (2002). The home they live in: Inner city children’s views on the
influence of parenting strategies on their leisure behavior. Leisure Science, 24(2), 161-
179. doi: 10.1080/01490400252900130
Park, H., & Lau, A. S. (2016). Socioeconomic status and parenting priorities: Child
independence and obedience around the world. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(1),
43-59. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12247
Pittman, L. D., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). African American adolescent girls in
impoverished communities: Parenting style and adolescent outcomes. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 199-224.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 50
Rasmussen, P. R. (2014). The task, challenges, and obstacles of parenting. The Journal of
Individual Psychology, 70(2), 90-113.
Romagnoli, A., & Wall, G. (2012). ‘I know I am good mom’: Young, low-income mother’s
experiences with risk perception, intensive, parenting ideology and parenting education
programs. Health, Risk, & Society, 14(3), 273-289. doi: 10.1080/13698575.2012.662634
Rowe, M.L., Denmark, N., Jones Harden, B., & Stapleton, L.M. (2015). The role of parent
education and parenting knowledge in children’s language and literacy skills among
White, Black, and Latino families. Infant and Child Development, 25(2), 198-220. doi:
10.1002/icd.1924
Scaramella, L.V., Conger, R.D., & Simons, R.L. (1999). Parental protective influences and
gender-specific increases in adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 9(2), 111-114.
Senia, J.M., Neppl, T.K., Gundmunson, C.G., Donnellan, M.B., & Lorenz, F.O. (2016). The
intergenerational continuity of socioeconomic status: Effects of parenting, personality,
and age at first romantic partnership. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 647-656.
Shuffelton. A.B. (2013). A matter of friendship: Educational interventions into culture and
poverty. Educational Theory, 63(3), 299-316. doi: 10.1111/edth.12025
Smith, R. L., Stagnitti, K., Lewis, A. J., & Pepin, G. (2015). The view of parents who experience
intergenerational poverty on parenting and play: A qualitative analysis. Child Care,
Health, and Development, 41(6), 873-881.
Taylor, R. D., & Roberts, D. (1995). Kinship support and maternal and adolescent well-being in
economically disadvantaged African American families. Child Development, 66(6),
1585-1597. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9601152090
PARENTING IN POVERTY 51
The United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Poverty [Census statistics]. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.html
Walton. F.X. (1998). Use of the most memorable observation as a technique of understanding
choice of parenting style. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory,
Research, & Practice, 54(4), 487-494.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disruptor of parent perceptions and family
interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(4), 302-313.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
PARENTING IN POVERTY 52
APPENDICES
PARENTING IN POVERTY 53
Appendix A
Parent Sessions
PARENTING IN POVERTY 54
Appendix A
Parent Sessions
Intake
I. Fill out intake forms: consent for treatment, informed consent, billing information
II. Explain the therapeutic process and expectations of the therapist, child, and parents
III. Explain the monthly parent education sessions and check-in
IV. Complete the child diagnostic assessment
V. Co-create a treatment plan with the parents and the child
Parent Session One – Introduction
I. Check-in
II. Get to know parents-establish a therapeutic relationship
a. Ask about current family atmosphere
b. Obtain a “typical day” snapshot
c. Ask parents about their most memorable observation
III. Introduce parenting styles
IV. Wrap-up and questions
Parent Session Two – Four Goals of Misbehavior
I. Check in
a. Review last session
II. Introduce the four goals of misbehavior
a. Behavior
b. How to identify goals by parent reaction
III. Ask parents to observe behaviors and reactions for the next month
PARENTING IN POVERTY 55
a. Check-list
IV. Wrap-up and questions
Parent Session Three - Crucial Cs
I. Check-in
a. Review parent observations
II. Introduce Crucial Cs
a. Explain how the Cs connect with mistaken goals
III. Handout: mistaken goals, parent feelings, and the corresponding Crucial C
IV. Wrap-up and questions
Parent Session Four
I. Check-in
a. Review last session
II. Brainstorm with the parent: How to implement the Crucial Cs with their child
a. Remind parents that the Crucial Cs can be used at all times
III. Discuss the importance of encouragement and empowerment for parents and children
IV. Wrap-up and review
Further Session
I. Check-in
II. Parent encouragement
III. Review mistaken goals and Crucial Cs
IV. Introduce addition concepts to address parenting concerns (e.g., routines, boundaries,
consistency, birth order, and other Adlerian tools)
V. Wrap-up and review
PARENTING IN POVERTY 56
Appendix B
Reminder Chart
PARENTING IN POVERTY 57
Appendix B
Reminder Chart
Undue Attention Power Struggle
Revenge/Retaliation Inadequacy/Discouraged
Parent Feels: hopeless
Crucial C: courage
Parents Can: Focus on the
child’s strengths. Give simple
tasks to complete and lots of
encouragement
Inadequacy = I feel like a failure
and want to hide = Gently show
me how
Parent feels: annoyed or irritated
Crucial C: connection
Parents Can: Set aside special
one-on-one time with the child.
Attention = I want to feel
important to you = Include me-
see me
Parent feels: angry
Crucial C: capable
Parents Can: Allow the child to
make choices and give them
jobs to help at home.
Power/Control = I want my
voice to be heard = Respect me
Parent feels: hurt
Crucial C: count
Parents Can: Allow the child to
present solutions to a family
problem
Revenge = I want to feel
significant = Listen to me
Information obtained from Dreikurs and Soltz (1992) and Bettner (2014).
top related