Page 50 - How_Children_Learn_To_Hate_Their_Parents

decisions, like the decision not to visit at all, especially if this is not the only influence present on the child.
There is even more research to suggest that there is a spiraling of action and attitude that follows a process of step-by-step commitment to an activity (Meyers, 1996). Consider a classic research experiment (Freedman, 1965) where children were shown a robot toy and told that when an experimenter left the room and told not to play with the toy. Freedman used a severe threat to half the children and a mild form of dissuasion with the other half. Several weeks later another researcher left the room but made no threat or statement before doing so. Of 18 children who had been severely threatened, 14 played with the robot. Of the children who had been mildly dissuaded, two thirds of them resisted playing with the robot.
This research suggests that mild forms of dissuasion that is subsequently internalized is more effective than threatening as a form of dissuasion. When children feel as though they are making the choice not to do something, they are more likely to continue resisting doing it. Often we hear that children are given the choice to exercise visitation. Parents say, “I’m not going to force her to go see her father. If she wants to that’s fine, but I’m not going to make her do anything she doesn’t want to do.” At the same time these parents give subtle messages about the “goodness” or “badness” of the other parent to help assist the supposed “choice.”
The experiments by Freedman show that moral choices are very powerful and have long- lasting effects on the behavior of children. Children who refuse to visit a parent because they have made a moral judgment (“my parent is bad,” “my parent has sinned,” “my evil,” ect.) may be strengthening a conviction that is nearly impossible to break.
50