Author: thecopingblog

Joe Namath and Roger Staubach are former NFL quarterbacks who played in the late 60s and early 70s, and are now enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

Namath was “Broadway Joe,” the superstar who lived the New York club life with a new babe on his arm each night. He opened a popular Upper East Side nightclub called Bachelors III, which not only drew big names in sports, entertainment, and politics, but also organized crime figures. To protect the league’s reputation, NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle ordered Namath to divest himself of his interest in the venture. Namath refused and retired from football. But he eventually recanted, agreed to sell the club, and un-retired. In 1984, at age 39, confirmed bachelor Namath married Deborah Mays. The couple had two daughters, and divorced in 2000.

Staubach was a Naval Academy star (Heisman Trophy, 1963) who did his military stint after graduation, and then joined the NFL. He and his wife, Marianne, have been married 56 years and have five children.

I remember a TV interview with Staubach sometime in the late ‘70s or early ‘80s. The interviewer was trying to draw Staubach into comparisons of himself and Namath with respect to their lifestyles, especially sex. At one point the interviewer even implied that perhaps Namath’s libidinal needs were more satisfied than Staubach’s. I’ll never forget how an irritated Staubach interrupted the interviewer and said, “Wait a minute. I enjoy sex just as much as Namath does. I just always have it with the same woman.”

Are you the parents of a teenager, and wondering where he/she might be heading on the morality wagon? You could share the stories above and ask them leading questions like, “Who do you admire more?” “Who do you want to be like?” But what about instead of focusing on their choice of identification, try this question on for size: “Which lifestyle do you prefer that we, your parents, follow? Namath’s or Staubach’s?” Suddenly, the context is not one of you telling the kid what’s right and what’s wrong. And, when the kids hear themselves telling you how they want their parents to behave, they open the door inside themselves for thinking critically about some pretty heavy issues.

For parents looking to discuss “character” with their kids – things like ethics, integrity, values, and honor – they might consider as a prompt two US Presidents, George H. W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

Bush was the 41^st president who served one term from 1989 to 1993. In 1942, at age 18, he enlisted in the Navy and became an aviator during WWII. He flew his first combat mission in 1944 during the attack on Wake Island in the Pacific. Three months later his plane was shot down during a bombing attack on Japanese-held territory, but he was rescued. After the war, Bush married Barbara Pierce in 1945, a marriage that lasted until his death, 73 years and six children later.

In 1993 Bush lost his bid for a second term as president to Bill Clinton. In his concession comments he said, “Well, here’s the way I see it. The people have spoken and we respect the majesty of the democratic system. I just called Governor Clinton over in Little Rock and offered my congratulations. He did run a strong campaign. I wish him well in the White House. And I want the country to know that our entire Administration will work closely with his team to insure the smooth transition of power. There is important work to be done and we wish him well.”

Trump was the 45^th president, and he lost his bid for a second term in 2020. He was educated at Fordham University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968. In 1977, he married Ivana Zelníčková. They had three children and ten grandchildren followed. The couple divorced in 1992, and in 1993 he married Marla Maples. They had one daughter. They were divorced in 1999, and in 2005, Trump married Melania Knauss. They have one son.

Following his loss in 2020, Trump said, “This election was rigged. Everybody knows it. I don’t mind if I lose an election. But I want to lose an election fair and square. What I don’t want to do is have it stolen from the American people. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we have no choice. We already have the proof, we already have the evidence, and it’s very clear. Many people in the media, and even judges so far, have refused to accept it. They know it’s true, they know it’s there, they know who won the election. But they refuse to say, ‘You’re right.’ Our country needs somebody to say, ‘You’re right.'” To this day, Trump continues to encourage his followers to find a way to overturn the election.

Try the Bush/Trump stories as prompts in discussions with your kids about honesty, values, principles, and conscience. Ask the kids: “Which approach do you prefer that we, your parents, follow, Bush’s or Trump’s?” Even if your kid knows where you stand on Trump, the nature of your question puts the discussion on a different playing field where you, not the kid, is the object of concern. Also, the issue becomes much broader than Bush or Trump. “I wouldn’t want you to look for excuses when you lose, Dad.” Or, “For me, Mom, if you really believe something, I want you to stand up for yourself.” Again, you have opened an inner door to self-discovery for your kids. Isn’t that what parenting is all about?

Many vaccination-resistant folks justify their hesitancy by saying there are side effects to the shot: Pain, redness and swelling in the arm; plus, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea, generally lasting a day and occurring primarily after the second shot. Many also mention blood clots in a small percentage of Johnson & Johnson recipients.

Isn’t it interesting that many of the “popular” medications used or prescribed for various conditions also list possible side effects, but these are generally ignored? I often wonder how many of those folks who refuse to get the coronavirus vaccination because of the side effects, readily take other prescription medications that have a daunting list of side effects. Even the most popular OTC pain killer, aspirin, can cause stomach irritation and bleeding, nausea, heartburn, skin bruising, and tinnitus.

Lexapro and Zoloft, popular antidepressant drugs, can produce drowsiness, dizziness, fainting, insomnia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, decreased libido, irregular heartbeat, and seizures. Xeljanz, used for types of arthritis and ulcerative colitis, can cause liver disease, heart problems, blood clots, stomach and intestinal ulcers, kidney disease, and risk of developing certain cancers.

Lisinopril (Zestril), a drug prescribed for high blood pressure, can produce a light-headed feeling, shortness of breath, fever, sore throat, nausea, weakness, chest pain, irregular heartbeats, and kidney and liver problems. Maybe you’ve seen a commercial for Entresto, which is prescribed for heart problems. Side effects include dizziness, cough, trouble breathing, elevated potassium, hypotension, fainting, and rash.

Another thing that’s interesting is that the people who justify their vaccine hesitancy by appealing to side effects, don’t seem to worry about the possible long-term effects of becoming infected. There is clear and ample anecdotal evidence that post-infection problems can occur long after infection symptoms have dissipated. The coronavirus has the potential to adversely affect literally every organ in the body, and produce lingering symptoms that can pop up over months. People who suffer this way are called “longhaulers.” And yet, fear of the vaccination seems to override logical thinking about such things.

Maybe the issue is the needle, something we mentioned in last week’s blog. Receiving a vaccination involves a needle being inserted into the body. Do we have a primeval fear that penetration of the skin signifies delivery of an impurity into the body, a wound, a threat to life? News coverage repeatedly shows people having a needle inserted into their arm, and many recoil at this sight. Most prescription medications that we talked about earlier involve taking a pill, an action that arouses far less instinctive revulsion than having a needle invade your body.

One thing for certain: using side effects to justify your resistance to receiving an inoculation is a poor coping strategy because it transforms what should be a problem-solving issue into an emotional issue. That transformation focuses on fear, anger, and distrust. Those and other emotions compromise your ability to think about an issue rationally, logically, and realistically, and make you dependent on others who may not have your best interests in mind. There’s no secret to effective coping with stress. It involves focusing on solving a problem, not on catastrophizing your life in service to normal emotions that you assume make you different, incompetent, and worthless.

A sizeable number of Americans – 25% to 40% across various polls – say they have no plans to receive a coronavirus vaccination. Even White evangelicals show hesitancy – 45% in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Rev. Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist public policy division, has a different perspective for resistors: “These vaccines are cause for evangelicals to celebrate and give thanks to God. I am confident that pastors and lay members alike want churches full again and vaccines will help all of us get there sooner rather than later.” Voices like Moore’s try to emphasize the message of Jesus, who preached the value of a social conscience. From Mark 12:31: Jesus is asked which commandment is the first of all. Jesus replies, “The first is,” ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” To the extent that getting the vaccination helps protect your neighbor’s health, hesitancy seems to conflict with a central tenet of Christianity.

In spite of this apparent contradiction, evangelicals are really no different than others in the reasons given for resistance. One reason is that the government released the vaccine before effectiveness was proven, and that same government is now forcing us to do something against our will. Resistors also believe that the vaccine doesn’t work, will make them sick, or has too many side effects. Many believe the vaccine is linked to aborted fetuses.

The thing to note about these and other reasons for avoiding a vaccination is that they’re all focused on emotion. One man says, “I feel like, and I know it works medically, but when you put something in you to help you stop from getting it, that just doesn’t work for me. I’ve never liked the idea of that.” The phrase “put something in you to help you stop from getting it” is a comment based on fear and misunderstanding; it focuses on a needle being inserted into the body. That image awakens a primeval fear that penetration of the skin signifies delivery of an impurity into the body, a wound, a threat to life. News coverage shows again and again people having the needle inserted into their arm, and many recoil at this sight.

There’s a coping lesson in all this: Fear, anger, distrust – rational problem-solving succumbs to these emotions because they prevent judicious examination of beliefs. Denial takes over as values like a social conscience, humility, and empathy get lost in a flood of ego-protecting justifications that bring you phony solace and help you avoid reality. Why is the comfort phony? Because this denial and avoidance tell you – falsely – that your self-concept has no validity (“I am unworthy.”), and that you are unable to confront and deal with factual experience (“I am weak and incompetent.”). You don’t really want to face the emotions that vaccination arouses in you, so you detour around it, rationalizing your avoidance – “It’s the government trying to control me.” “It’s like letting poison enter my body.”  Such rationalizations can render you helpless and make you self-critical, which can lead to depression.

Pandemic aside, for those who might be open to at least considering any vaccination – whether seasonal flu, coronavirus, HPV, shingles, pneumonia, chickenpox, measles, mumps, hepatitis, polio, and others, either for themselves or for their children – it is reasonable to ask: “How do I deal with my fear, and change my attitude about being vaccinated? How do I break the avoidance cycle?” Here is how we answer those questions: Remember, these are stress and coping issues that require solving a problem, not focusing on fear and other emotions. Thus, you must make a plan that involves four steps. First, accept your fear and other emotions: “I feel distress from natural fears that tell me I am a normal, valid human being.” Second, examine your accountability and rational thinking: “Why should I blame the government? I follow many government guidelines. I wear my seatbelt; I follow restrictions on smoking; I pay taxes; I read warning labels on food and drug packages.” Third, identify your values: “I believe in personal effort, not just receiving handouts; I believe in the power of love over hate; I believe in helping and respecting others – I don’t let my friends drive drunk; I recognize that life is not always just about me, that I’m a member of a community.” Fourth, take action: “If I want to actualize who I am, and be true to myself and my values, I must do things not only with my own welfare in mind, but also remembering the welfare of others. I will do my part for the health and general welfare of society. I will discuss with my physician about my family being vaccinated along with me; I will volunteer at a health center; I will share my story with others.”

As we point out many times in blog entries, the best way to find yourself, to increase your self-esteem, humility, and empathy, and to experience fully the richness of life, is to act in ways that bring you satisfaction, contentment, and gratification; to perform actions that complement your values, that include others in the equation, and that engage your social conscience. You will smile, and leave a daily legacy where people remember you because you made them smile, too.

Michael Church, blog co-host, shares some brief thoughts on where your coping focus should be placed.

You are neither cats nor dogs who live in the present, no more than you are a computer who can avoid stress and people, and intellectualize your way through life and be satisfied. Instead, you must learn to keep your focus on your goals and purposes, and tune out the noise and chaos around you. Furthermore, you must be wary of focusing on your temporary thoughts and feelings, especially those negative ones, because that focus will misguide you to see them as your problem. But they are not your problem; it is your inaction toward meaningful goals that is the problem and that hinders your coping efforts. Effective coping requires moving toward purposeful goals, even when that pursuit causes suffering. That’s right – even when positive goal-directed actions bring you anguish, it is the discomfort that can increase a sense of meaning. You will value most the things you have worked hardest for, and suffered for the most. Inaction caused by lack of clarity of values and purposes, or an inability to overcome fear, are the primary sources of psychological stress. Almost inevitably, people who are not meaningfully engaged in purposeful commitment toward obtaining desired goals, are engaging in self-defeating actions. These types of people either underachieve by avoiding stress and growth, or they get lost in escape behaviors that temporarily give them a cheap thrill at the expense of their long-term health. Proactive coping with stress requires you to maintain a focus on your goals and purposes, and engage in actions that bring you closer to those goals.  

  NOTE: Cory does not refer to any specific person. He is a composite of several cases.        

  Throughout this blog and in our books, Church and Brooks present a 3-stage coping process that involves acceptance, accountability, and developing a coping plan of action that involves heavy doses of humility and empathy. We also stress that when developing a plan of action, you must focus on overt behaviors, not on your emotions, feelings, and thoughts. Those parts of you do not make you a good or bad person; they are natural and they are you. Do not waste your time feeling guilty about them or trying to control or deny them – such as, frequently telling yourself, “I must make myself less anxious.” Focus, instead, on actions that you can choose to take, actions that are based on goals, and that bring you a sense of productivity and satisfaction.

What do we mean, “Actions based on goals”? Church shares his thoughts:

“Without appropriate, specific, clear, and objectively verifiable goals, it is unlikely there will be optimal progress, if any at all. Goals help you focus; they give you purpose to reach them; they help you persist. There are rules to follow, however. Choose goals that are measurable. Saying, ‘I will lose weight’ is inappropriate; a more appropriate goal is, ‘I will reduce my calorie consumption by 20% and increase my exercise time by 25%.’ Set attainable goals. ‘I want to be more at peace’ is vague, but vowing ‘to regularly engage in some form of relaxation, meditation, or biofeedback’ is measurable and attainable. Setting a goal to ‘save my marriage’ is also vague, whereas, ‘I will get therapeutic help individually or jointly with my spouse’ is doable, and specifies an action to take. Simply stating goals does not provide you with the motivation you need to move successfully toward them. Use the measurable and specific steps you can take to provide you with guideposts to determine whether you are making progress, and have met or exceeded them. When moving toward goals, it is crucial to be able to assess your movement.”

Cory went to a well-known university for two years and then dropped out with lack of motivation and direction. He connected neither socially nor academically in terms of making friends, studying, or finding a major. He was aimless, adrift. He returned from college depressed, and moped around until his parents told him to get into counseling or “hit the trail.” He wisely chose counseling. Once in therapy, he was able talk about his lack of self-identity, purpose, achievement motivation, and career goals.

Cory was the youngest son of highly successful professionals. He had two older brothers, both of whom had successful college experiences, landed good jobs following graduation, and were well on the road to productive careers. Cory admitted he grew up obsessed with exceeding his parents’ and brothers’ achievements, and generally felt he was in competition with them in a battle to prove himself worthy. Counseling helped Cory see he was never really in competition with his parents or siblings, but always with himself. His focus on his family’s achievements prevented him from discovering his own values, purposes, interests, and needs. He never bothered to define personal goals consistent with his standards and principles; he was always too busy concentrating on what others in the family were doing.

His counselor encouraged him to engage in values clarification in order to identify his wants and priorities in work and life in general. What kind of work did he want to do? How important was independence, salary, and flexibility? Did he want to help others or be more self-focused in meeting wants and needs? How valuable were friends and intimacy to him? Did he want to have a family and get married? If so, what kind of traits would he want in a mate? As Cory confronted these questions, he began to discover that the university he had been attending was not consistent with his answers. Simply put, this school was poorly suited to his personality. No wonder he never really felt comfortable there.

Cory found another institution that was a better match for him. The counselor also discouraged him from looking immediately for a specific career. Rather, he was encouraged to find a major he enjoyed, one consistent with his goals and values. He was assured that eventually his major would help him discover a variety of career paths that would complement his needs and interests. Before too long, Cory was no longer preoccupied with keeping up with others or worrying if others approved of his life goals and pursuits. He established his individuality and identity, focusing on who he was and what he wanted to be. For the first time in his life, he felt he was truly committed to his future. His mood became more positive, he began exercising regularly, and he reconnected with friends. He confronted his problems, sought help, defined his values, created new purposes and direction, and followed through with needed behavior changes. He accepted that it was okay to go his own way, even if it meant he might not earn the money and status of his parents and siblings. He discovered he was okay with being the best Cory he could be.

NOTE: This entry does not refer to any particular person or to any particular group. “Ron” is a composite of multiple cases.

Children’s self-esteem can be enhanced by teaching them how to cope with both success and failure. Whether dealing with accomplishments or disappointments, when parents help their kids focus on things they can control – like effort – then both their achievements and self-esteem are enhanced. In fact, research shows that high achieving and high self-esteem children tend to attribute their successes and failures to effort, and similar factors that can be controlled – and changed if necessary – such as focus, organization, and planning.

These principles also apply to adults. The key is learning how to analyze and evaluate your experiences. Tackling job assignments, resolving daily interpersonal conflicts, meeting the demands of childrearing, and maintaining friendships – all these challenges are subject to success and failure. Whatever the outcome, analyze your preparation and effort before you let success – or failure – intoxicate you into believing you are better – or worse – than you truly are. When you are realistic in assessing the reasons for your successes and failures, you will maintain a stable self-concept and high self-esteem. 

Many people wonder if positive thinking is important in this process. Self-help books are filled with comments about the so-called power of positive thinking. When it comes to self-esteem, however, psychological research and clinical observation do not consistently support its usefulness. That makes sense when you think about it. To feel better about ourselves, if all we have to do is think positively, then why is it that so many people languish in a swamp of low self-esteem? Why don’t they simply snap out of the doldrums by having positive thoughts? The fact is, you can say positive things to yourself all day long, but that is not sufficient to increase your self-esteem. Let’s face it, psychologists would be out of business if all people had to do was think positively in order to enhance their self-esteem.

Positive thinking is ineffective with low self-esteem because people can see that their positive thoughts are inconsistent with their already well-established self-doubts. In short, they know better! What we’re saying is that you won’t be fooled by having positive thoughts that don’t square with your personal reality! What you have to do, therefore, is change that personal reality. And how do you do that? Simple. Engage in actions that bring you satisfaction and contentment, actions that make you feel worthwhile and productive. Such actions will provide you with positive feedback that will result in more optimistic feelings about yourself. Without appropriate actions, positive thoughts are nothing more than fantasy.

Ron was a socially unskilled young college man with relationship and emotional problems. He generally had a hard time making friends and getting dates. A psychologist told him to think positively and act assertively, and his problems would be eliminated. Beginning several days before each counseling session, he required Ron to ask co-eds for a date. As you might expect, the strategy didn’t work. The poor guy came to therapy sessions “bummed out because I was rejected again and again.” 

Ron was blinded by the “power” of positive thinking, believing that his optimism would be enough to encourage women to agree to his date request. The fact is, however, his belief in positive thinking prevented him from reasoning things out rationally. That is, how often is a young man going to be successful in asking out a woman he barely knows? Not often. Ron, however, thought, “I know she will say yes. I’ve got to think positively!” Ron may have been thinking positively, but he wasn’t thinking or acting rationally. He believed positive thinking and assertiveness would produce success; but all it led to was frequent rejection, which prevented him from analyzing why he was having social problems. Ron didn’t need positive thinking; he needed social-skills training and some cognitive restructuring! He found his way to a new counselor, and that is exactly what they worked on in therapy.

Ron had to learn to lower his expectations and re-evaluate social pressures from others to date regularly; being turned down, for instance, did not mean he was an unworthy person. Furthermore, he needed to accept the reality that many of his social problems resulted from fairly normal anxiety and discomfort when talking with women. Rather than compensate for these insecurities with fake confidence – “Hi, honey. I’m the man of your dreams!” – Ron learned to be more realistic about his poor social skills. He worked at focusing on his social abilities, and not being distracted by irrelevant positive thinking. For instance, Ron believed it was appropriate to approach a girl after class – a girl he barely knew – and say, “Hey, how about a movie with me tonight?”  He had to learn there are ways to initiate a conversation and ways not to initiate one; there are ways to keep a conversation going; there are signals from others he needed to be sensitive to, and react accordingly. The effect of working on these changes in his thinking – and coordinating his actions to those changes – was to lower his social anxiety.

Eventually, Ron asked out only the few women who showed some reciprocal interest in him after several casual conversations over a period of time. This strategy increased the odds of actually getting a date – which he did, sometimes. But he learned that expecting only occasional success was realistic, and those occasional successes were sufficient to increase his self-esteem. He accepted the realities of the dating world; he made himself accountable for adapting to those realities; he devised a plan of action. In short, with some guidance, he taught himself to cope better with his social stressors.

NOTE: This entry is not directed at any particular person or group. The examples are composites from multiple instances.

Helicopter Parents – they hover over their kids and attempt to micromanage their lives. Combat Helicopter Parents – these guys are armed for battle, and God save you if you’re in their way! A dorm counselor at a large university received a call at 3AM from a distraught parent: “I haven’t heard from my daughter in two days. She’s not answering her cell phone and her roommate said she’s sick. I’m worried if she needs to go to the emergency room. Is she in her room? Why aren’t you people on top of this?”

Turns out the young woman was studying with some classmates who lived off-campus. The study session went late so she just “crashed” at their apartment that night instead of trudging through the campus to her dorm. When the harried dorm counselor finally found her in class the next morning, he asked, “Are you sick? Your mom’s worried.” Her reply? “Sick? No way. Well, I do have a little cold.” All the poor counselor could say was, “Call home! PLEASE!”

In the past couple of posts, we’ve discussed parenting. We can draw on some of our earlier comments to answer the question: “Why are some parents so overly involved in their kids’ lives, even when the kid is in college and officially an adult?” One possibility is that the parents are showing a pattern of control that began when their child was younger. Terrified that the kid would get into the wrong crowd and be tempted in a world of drugs and sex, they began to micromanage the kid’s activities 24/7; now they can’t break the habit. It’s also possible that the parents don’t trust the kid and never did. They see their son or daughter as lacking in ability and judgment, and believe success will only come as a result of their intervention. Maybe the parents fear their child will fail, so they become enablers who spoil the child; whatever Johnny or Sally wants is fine with them. They mistakenly believe that competence and self-esteem result from success, and failure must be avoided at all costs. So, they try to shelter the child from failure believing that high self-esteem will result – a belief that has little research support, by the way. Another possibility is that the parents reflect on their own youthful craziness, feel anxious about their ability as parents, and want to make sure their children have more focus and direction than they did.

Whatever the reason behind “helicoptering,” it’s psychologically damaging. In fact, some say it’s a form of child abuse that adversely affects emotional development. That view is supported by research and clinical observation. In the extreme, sheltered kids are more vulnerable to PTSD when adults; they are not taught how to learn from failure; they enter adulthood with low self-esteem; they feel entitled, which robs them of maintaining healthy and productive social interactions; they become self-absorbed, lacking in humility and empathy; they resist being accountable for their actions; and, most tragically, they are at risk for feeling helpless and descending into depression.

A father called his son’s university financial aid office, asking why he had not received the statement for his son’s financial aid package for the upcoming year. The staff person checked the records and told dad that his son had been sent multiple emails and regular campus mail notices that he needed to come in and sign the papers so they could be sent to his parents. Apparently, he did not see any urgency to the request, and no doubt figured he had better things to do. The staffer boldly suggested to dad that the boy was being a little irresponsible.

When dad heard about the notices sent to his son over the previous month, and the suggestion sonny was behaving in a less-than-adult fashion, he protested, “But you have to realize, he’s only 21 years old!”

The staffer was incensed, and replied, “Sir, my son is a 21-year-old soldier stationed in Iraq, and he might die for your son!” And she hung up on dad! An hour later, the boy showed up in the office to sign the papers. But you know what’s sad here? The kid showed up only after dad obviously called him and read him the riot act! This kid was overindulged, spoiled, protected, and shielded from having to face responsibility. When he graduates and enters the work force, the first time he is faced with a challenge on the job, will he call dad? “My boss gave me this assignment to finish by tomorrow! What do I do, dad? Help!”

My colleague Mike Church remembers, “One day when one of my daughters was eight years old, I told her she was cute, sweet, and smart.  She quickly retorted, ‘You have to say that Daddy because you’re my Dad.’  Suddenly, I realized she was forming her own opinions of herself, based on impressions from people in her social world. Clearly, she wanted to receive approval and recognition from more than her parental figures. She was beginning to evaluate herself based on interaction and feedback from a much larger field of influence.”

Most psychologists agree that the seeds of self-esteem are planted in childhood through early social interactions with many people, but especially with parents. This is not to say that parents should attribute their kids’ shortcomings and failures as entirely the result of how they raised the kids. After all, children are free to make choices as they grow. Thus, whereas it’s true that parents can influence their children’s development into adulthood, we don’t want to say that parents completely determine how their kids turn out.

Child psychologists have studied the influence on children of various parental childrearing styles. Here’s a summary of some of those styles. Do you see yourself in them, as either a child or a parent? That recognition can often be helpful in assessing any coping problems you may have. In other words, when you assess factors that can help you or hinder you in coping with your stressors, it can be helpful to look at yourself when you were a child, and how you may be now as a parent.

Trust and Autonomy. When parents provide a consistently loving and secure environment, they help their children develop feelings of trust in others, and confidence to be autonomous and explore their environment. Parents who are neglectful or abusive generate distrust in kids, and a tendency when an adult to feel anxious around others.

Positive Regard. Psychologist Carl Rogers focused on whether children receive conditional or unconditional positive regard from parents. Conditional love means children are loved only if they obey the dictates of the parent. Children who receive unconditional positive regard are loved and supported even when they go against parental wishes; they are secure in the knowledge that it is their behavior parents do not approve of, not them.

Good vs. Bad Mother. Many psychologists say the most important early determinant of self is the quality of the relationship with mom. Children see a benevolent and loving mom as a good person, and they tend to have high self-esteem; they view an unloving mom as bad, and are likely to have low self-esteem. These levels of self-esteem often persist into adulthood. Adults who have been neglected or abused as children or adolescents often have low self-esteem and see themselves as unlovable. In counseling they say such things as, “How could I expect anyone to love me if my parents didn’t?” With roots going back to childhood, this thinking in an adult can be difficult to change.

Intimacy vs. Rejection. Some children are given too much intimacy and are encouraged to display dependent behavior. The resulting self-concept is imbalanced, and the child grows into adult patterns of narcissism and dependency. The other extreme is found in parents who are busy trying to meet their own needs, and become emotionally distant from their children. As adults the kids suffer loneliness and depression and search for experiences that will fulfill the emotional loss from having distant parents. However, psychological damage can also be done by parents who are overly involved with their children – helicopter parents – and who over-identify with their children’s achievements. Many parents put undue pressure on them to succeed athletically, socially, and academically. Excessive criticism confuses children about the meaning of success and failure, and they see themselves as failures when they lose.

Social Comparison. Parents must be aware of children’s tendency tocompare themselves with schoolmates, same-age peers, and similar-age siblings, particularly same-gender ones. Many children have low self-esteem because they believe their sibling(s) is(are) more adequate in important areas. This negative comparison can occur even when they are performing in the above-average range academically, athletically, or socially. They still see themselves as failures in relation to an extremely successful sibling. Parents must help children put social comparison in perspective, and not use it to define to themselves who they are.

Authoritarian Parent. In childrearing, there is a huge difference between authoritative and authoritarian parents. High self-esteem can be facilitated by authoritative styles of interaction. These parents are warm, supportive, and allow children a degree of autonomy to explore their world; but the parents set clear limits to their children’s behavior and are consistent in their control of rewards and punishers. On the other hand, authoritarian parents are dictatorial, controlling, demanding, and punitive, undermining their children’s feelings of adequacy by treating them as unworthy, untrustworthy, and lacking judgment.

As we said earlier, gaining some insight into your stressors and the coping strategies you use to deal with them, can help you cope better. Just remember, reflecting on your past can be subject to lots of error; memories of childhood are tricky. Evaluating yourself in the present as a parent, however, and examining your style of interaction with your children, can provide valuable understanding when you experience undo anxiety and stress as a parent.

NOTE: Other than describing two events that were in the news, this entry does not refer to any particular person or to any particular group, and the second person personal pronoun “you” is used as a generic universal. The post presents analyses one may make based on information from the discipline of psychology.

I remember taking a course in Adolescent Psychology when I was an undergraduate in the early 1960s. The professor made a comment one day and it has stuck with me over the years. He said, “Being a parent is a job, but it’s kind of unique. I don’t know of any other job where the goal is to be unemployed.” The class knew what he was saying: At some point, the child of  successful parenting will declare independence – cut the cord, so to speak – and venture forth to make his or her way in the world, thus rendering the parent unemployed.

            Two recent events made me think of that job analogy of parenthood. The first was when a Texas Senator packed up his wife and kids, age 9 and 11, and they headed with him to Cancun. Texas was in the midst of a Winter emergency as temperatures plunged below freezing for days, power went out, and water pipes burst in thousands of homes. People were running out of food and becoming desperate, while the Senator acceded to his kids’ pleas to take them somewhere warm. He said he wanted to be a good dad. I wondered: Was he doing his job as a parent? Should he have taken his kids to a food bank or a shelter and handed out food, water, blankets, and other basic necessities? Was he being a good role model by suggesting to his kids that when the going gets tough, get out of town? Was he teaching them how to cope with adversity? Was he teaching them that sensitivity to the needs of others was an honorable value? Just wondering, not passing judgment.

            The other event was a group of parents standing around a fire burning face masks. They were protesting the mandate to wear masks during the virus pandemic. Several parents had their kids – who looked about 8 -10 – with them, and the kids were helping them toss masks into the fire. I got to thinking: Is it parents’ job to educate their kids, or to indoctrinate them? Educate means explaining all sides of an issue to the kids, presenting the evidence for each position, and when their understanding is mature enough, letting them form their own opinion. Indoctrinate means convincing kids to adopt the parents’ values as being correct.

To answer all these questions, of course, parents would need to develop a job description of their parenting employment. If the family is like a company with you, the parent, in charge, what kind of product do you want to produce? An independent or a dependent kid? A kid who seeks perfection, or who seeks curiosity? A questioning or an accepting kid? An active thinker or a passive listener? A kid who values rigid, stern actions, or who values flexibility? A kid who is willing to accept challenges and work hard to overcome them by learning from mistakes, or a kid who feels entitled, wants others to do the hard work, and blames others for failures?

From a context of coping with stress, I believe that as a parent, you can only answer these questions by looking inside yourself, and including such a self-analysis as part of the parenting job description. For instance, are you trying to be a perfect parent? Do you fear losing your parenting job? If your kids choose actions and values that are not yours, will you feel you are imperfect – a loser, a failure – as a parent? Are you insecure with your own principles such that you must have your kids accept them to reinforce your beliefs and standards, and thereby allay your insecurities? Are your kids simply crutches that you use to justify who you are, and to show yourself you are a worthy person?

Success at the parenting job boils down to how you decide to cope with your stressors. In making that decision, you need to accept that the goal of your psychological life should not be self-preoccupation, inflexible thinking, and perfection in all you do as a parent. Come to think of it, success at living involves those things, too!

NOTE: This entry does not refer to any particular person or to any particular group. The post presents analyses one may make based on information from the discipline of psychology.

In our 2019 book, Using Psychology to Cope with Everyday Stress, Mike Church and I presented a three-step coping model: Acceptance, Accountability, and Planning. Consider Alice – 45 years old and happily married – whose youngest child just graduated from law school and moved to a distant city to join a law firm. Suddenly, Alice is faced with an empty nest as all three of her children have relocated to far-away areas to pursue their careers and lives. Alice feels frustrated and fearful for her future. “Have I failed?” she wonders. “Should I have finished college and started a career before having kids? Am I a burden on my husband?” Alice begins to develop sleep problems and gain weight; she watches too much TV and spends too much time on social media. She sees that she is deteriorating, both physically and psychologically. One day she looks in the mirror and says with disgust: “Enough of this crap. I’m losing control. I’m calling that counseling office Ann [a good friend] said helped her. I need to put some structure back into my life and redefine myself.”

Kevin, 56, is widowed with two sons who are married and live 2,000 miles away. He is on disability because of a work accident from several years ago. Physically, he can handle most normal everyday chores and activities, but he spends most of his days at home feeling sorry for himself. His accident and his wife’s death from cancer happened within months of each other, and his behavior switched from, “Out of my way, I can handle this,” to, “I’m not much good anymore.” His depression grows almost daily.

One day a friend, Jim, called: “Kevin! I need help. I have to deliver for Meals on Wheels today but I pulled my back. I can drive OK, but getting in and out of the car is agony. Would you come with me and take the meals up to the door?” Kevin was glad to get out of the house and said he would help. At the first stop, a woman yelled out when he knocked, “It’s open! Just bring it in.” She was in the kitchen and Kevin put the meal in the fridge for her. He started for the front door but she grabbed his arm and said, “Pray with me, please.” Kevin returned to the car and told Jim: “I stood there holding her hand while she thanked God for me being there to help her. Prayed for me! I mean, no one ever prayed for me, Jim!” At later stops, no one else prayed for him, but nearly every one of them said something like, “God bless you,” or, “You’re a saint, sir.”

Kevin got home that day, looked around the house, and realized that he was missing out on life. He picked up the phone and called the Office of Aging. He said he wanted to volunteer to deliver meals. The lady said great and added that they also needed drivers to taxi old folks around to their doctor appointments, take them shopping – wherever they needed to go. Kevin said, “I’m your guy, ma’am. Just tell me what needs doing and I’ll get it done.”

What do Alice and Kevin have in common? They both came to the realization that they needed to take control of their lives and cope better. They accepted the reality of their situations and took responsibility for their dilemmas. No blaming others, no rationalizations – just the determined recognition that, “This is on me and I need help getting out of it.” Then they began to develop a plan. For Alice, it was deciding to begin counseling. As treatment progressed, she and her therapist developed a coping plan that made her a more active participant in life. The key was action – doing things, not just sitting around focusing on her emotions. Same with Kevin. As soon as he picked up the phone and called the Office of Aging, he was engaging his plan: Time to do things, not just sit around and focus on emotions. Each put a general plan in action, and the details would emerge as time went on.

Is your life out of balance? Do you make the mistake of focusing on your emotions and resolving to get rid of them? Are conditions like depression, anxiety, hopelessness, helplessness, jealousy, anger, and frustration your reality? You must accept them as a part of you, not try to excise them from your life; you would lose a part of who you are. You must focus instead on actions to solve a problem, not to relieve you of emotions. Actions will rejuvenate you as you see yourself participating in life, doing things that bring you contentment. Your emotions will still be present, but they will not dominate you. They will take a back seat to new feelings of being worthy, strong, capable, and fulfilled – feelings that will emerge from using your actions to solve a problem and strengthen you. Acceptance, Accountability, and Planning – those are the steps to restoring a constructive, productive, and satisfying life, and coping successfully with your stressors.