running head: parenting in poverty 1 effective parenting

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


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.


Effective Parenting in Poverty: An Adlerian Approach

Copyright © 2017

Jennifer Boyd

All rights reserved


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


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


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 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


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


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).


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


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


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


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).


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.,


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).


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


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


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).


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).


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


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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,


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


APPENDICES


Appendix A

Parent Sessions


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


a. Check-list


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


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


Appendix B

Reminder Chart


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).

running head: parenting in poverty 1 effective parenting

Documents