Adlerian family and parent education

1. Introduction

Version followed: the Dreikursian model as set out in Dreikurs & Soltz, Children: The Challenge (1964), for the parenting principles, and Dreikurs, Corsini, Lowe & Sonstegard, Adlerian Family Counseling (1959), for the counselling-centre interview sequence. The open-forum (audience) format follows Lowe as reported by Croake, and the family-as-a-unit variant follows Pew & Pew (1972). STEP (Dinkmeyer & McKay; 1997 edition) and Active Parenting (Popkin; 4th edition, 2014) are named as derived programmes, not as the version followed.

Adlerian family and parent education is an educational, not psychiatric, approach. Parents, and sometimes a whole family, are counselled, often in front of an audience of other parents or trainees. Parents learn why their children misbehave and how to respond differently. The core idea is that all behaviour serves a goal: the child is trying to find a place, or belonging and significance, in the family. A misbehaving child is a discouraged child pursuing one of four mistaken goals: undue attention, power, revenge or display of inadequacy. Change happens when the adults (1) recognise the goal, (2) stop paying off the goal with their habitual reactions, (3) replace reward and punishment with encouragement, natural and logical consequences, and training, and (4) set up democratic structures such as the family council, where children share responsibility. Parents are treated as clients and learners in their own right. Change in the parents' behaviour is the lever. [source: Croake; West; Nash; Pepper; Lew]

Status note: This is a structured educational model with a counselling-centre manual (1959). It is not a session-by-session psychotherapy protocol. Session counts and phase criteria below are partly drawn from secondary reports. Where they are inferred, they are marked [synthesis]. The primary books (1959, 1964, 1974 Family Council) are access-restricted on archive.org so are not drawn on here. Content attributed to them comes from secondary sources that summarise them, or from recall flagged [uncertain].

2. Framework

There are two parallel delivery tracks: (A) family counselling at a Family Education Centre (open forum) or in the office, and (B) parent study groups, for example groups reading Children: The Challenge, or manualised derivatives (STEP, Active Parenting). [source: Nash; Grafton; West]

Phase 0 – Intake and screening (one contact, before any public session)

Goals: gather the children's names and ages and the parents' stated child-rearing difficulties. Assure parents that only topics they raise will be discussed. Screen out families unsuitable for the open centre: multi-problem families, a member in psychiatric treatment, non-verbal parents, or parents attending unwillingly. Screened-out families can still benefit as audience members. [source: Nash]
Add safeguarding screening for abuse, domestic violence, parental mental illness or substance misuse, and child risk. Families with active safeguarding concerns go to private, appropriately mandated services, never to an audience format. [synthesis]
Get written informed consent from parents, and age-appropriate assent from children, to being interviewed before an audience. Explain who the audience is (Croake: usually trainees, and the family knows this beforehand). [source: Croake; consent procedure = synthesis]

Phase 1 – Initial family interview (one session; about 30 minutes with the family in the open-forum variant, up to about 60 minutes in total) [source: Croake; Nash]

Standard sequence (Dreikurs et al. 1959, as reported): (1) interview the parents; (2) parents leave and the children are interviewed; (3) the playroom report is heard; (4) parents are seen again, alone or with the children, and a recommendation is made or confirmed. [source: Croake; Nash]
Children below adolescence are usually seen apart from the parents, because parents tend to dominate. Adolescents, and younger children once rapport is good, can be seen with the parents. [source: Croake]
Goals: a specific description of the presenting problem, a typical day, the family constellation, a hypothesis about each child's mistaken goal, goal disclosure with the child, and one or two concrete recommendations for the coming week. [source: Croake; Nash; specific number = synthesis]
Open forum: after the interview, the family sits in the audience while counsellor and audience discuss the family's dynamics (a chalkboard may be used to diagram constellation and alliances). The family listens without having to defend itself. [source: Croake, reporting Lowe]

Phase 2 – Follow-up interviews (typically weekly to fortnightly)

Goals: review what was tried, collect specific incidents, re-check the goal hypotheses, encourage the parents, and add or modify recommendations one step at a time. [source: Nash, follow-up interviews; interval = synthesis]
Typical total: 8–10 sessions in the standard model and 5–7 when the family is seen as a unit (Pew & Pew). [source: Croake]

Phase 3 – Consolidation and transfer

Goals: a family council running weekly, parents solving new problems themselves rather than relying on the counsellor, and continued learning through a study group. [source: Lew; Grafton; Nash]

Track B – Study and education groups

Centre evenings (Nash's school model): 21 evening sessions from September to May. Each evening runs leadership training, then open-centre interviews (about 60 minutes), then parent-led small groups of about 12, then a staff feedback session. Chapters of Children: The Challenge are set as reading. [source: Nash]
STEP (1997 edition): 7 weekly 2-hour group sessions for parents of children aged 6–12. Topics: understanding self and child; beliefs and feelings; encouragement; listening and talking; cooperation; discipline; drug-use prevention. [source: ACF Clearinghouse] The original 1976 kit had more sessions [uncertain: 9, from recall].
Active Parenting 4th ed. (Popkin 2014): 6 weekly 2-hour video-based group sessions for parents of children aged 5–12. The video contrasts autocratic and permissive scenes with an "active" (authoritative) approach. [source: CEBC]

Criteria for moving between phases [synthesis, built from the sources' sequence]

Intake → interview: consent and assent obtained, screening passed, problem stated in concrete incidents.
Interview → recommendation: a goal hypothesis supported by two of three signs: the adult's feeling, the child's response to correction, and the recognition reflex at disclosure. [source for the signs: Pepper; UNCG]
Follow-up → next recommendation: parents report having carried out the previous recommendation, with specific incidents.
Consolidation → close: the presenting misbehaviour is reduced; the family council is functioning; parents analyse a new incident themselves (goal, feeling, alternative). [source: Lew, on building parents' problem-solving]

3. Guiding principles

[source: Pepper; Lew; Croake; West; Iowa State/New World Encyclopedia; principles also recalled from Dreikurs & Soltz 1964 chapter headings, marked [uncertain]]

All behaviour is purposive. Ask what the behaviour achieves for the child, not what caused it.
The child's basic aim is to belong and to feel significant. Look for how the misbehaviour is the child's mistaken route to a place in the family.
A misbehaving child is a discouraged child. Treat misbehaviour as a signal for encouragement, not for more pressure. [source: Pepper]
Four mistaken goals (attention, power, revenge, display of inadequacy). Use them as working hypotheses about purpose, never as labels for children. [source: Lew; Mosak & Mosak] Mosak notes the four goals apply chiefly to children up to about age 10. [source: Mosak]
Social equality and democracy in the family. Parents and children are equal in worth, not in role. Parents lead but do not dominate. [source: Iowa State; West]
Mutual respect. Respect the child (no humiliation) and respect yourself (no giving in). [source: Pepper; Lew]
Firmness without domination; kindness with firmness. Decide what you will do, not what you will make the child do. [uncertain: chapter heading recalled from 1964]
Rewards and punishment are ineffective in a democracy. Punishment invites retaliation and teaches power. Rewards teach children to expect payment. Use consequences and encouragement instead. [source: Iowa State; 'fallacy of reward and punishment' as a 1964 theme = uncertain]
Encouragement is the central task. Every intervention should leave the child feeling more capable and more connected. [source: UNCG; Iowa State]
Courage to be imperfect. Model accepting your own mistakes, and treat the child's mistakes as learning. [source: UNCG, 'mistakes as learning'; phrase is Dreikurs's lecture title = uncertain]
Never do for a child what he can do for himself. Every unnecessary service is discouraging. [source: Lew, citing Dreikurs 1964]
The parent changes the parent. Work on what I can change, not on what the child should change. [source: Lew, "reaching a new agreement"]
Act, don't talk. In conflict, words become ammunition, so a calm action teaches. [source: Pepper; uncertain as 1964 heading wording]
Withdraw from the conflict; neither fight nor give in. A power struggle needs two players. [source: Pepper]
Order and routine are a teacher. Predictable routines remove daily battles. [uncertain: recalled 1964]
Family constellation and atmosphere shape each child's style. Look at sibling positions and alliances, not only at the identified child. [source: West; Croake]
Siblings are a system ("good child / bad child" is a joint arrangement). Do not take sides between children. [source: Croake]
Counsellor neutrality and honesty. Never side with parents or children, never deceive either, and tell children what is being recommended. [source: Croake]
Educational, public, preventive stance. Normalise ordinary problems. The audience learns and encourages, not judges. [source: Nash; Grafton; West]
Guide by questions, do not hand out tricks. Build parents' own problem-solving and avoid a "bag of tricks". [source: Lew]
Goal knowledge is for understanding, not for outsmarting the child. Disclosure is offered as a respectful guess. [source: Lew]
Child safety overrides every technique. No consequence, withdrawal or audience format may expose a child to danger or humiliation. [synthesis]

4. Intervention inventory

There are three groups. A covers the counselling-centre interview procedures, used by the counsellor. B covers the corrective methods taught to parents, which become recommendations. C covers structures and group formats. All example language is illustrative unless it is quoted and cited.

A. Counselling-centre procedures

A1. Intake and screening interview

Purpose / when: Before any family is interviewed in an open centre or in front of trainees. [source: Nash]
Steps: (1) Meet the parents privately. (2) Record the children's names, ages and birth order. (3) Ask the parents to name the difficulties they want help with, and promise that only these will be raised. (4) Screen out unsuitable families: multi-problem, member in psychiatric treatment, non-verbal or unwilling parents. Offer them audience membership, or refer them to individual or family therapy. [source: Nash] (5) Explain the audience format and get written consent. Get the child's assent and explain it simply. Agree on what will not be discussed. [synthesis] (6) Ask direct safeguarding questions about physical punishment, violence at home, and any professional or statutory involvement. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "In the centre we only talk about what you've told us you want help with. Is there anything you'd rather we don't bring up in front of the group?"
Watch for: A parent who wants a public forum to shame a child. Coercion between partners about attending. Disclosures that trigger safeguarding duties: stop and follow local procedures, and do not proceed to the open format. [synthesis]

A2. Parent interview: specific presenting problem

Purpose / when: The first segment of every initial interview. It turns general complaints ("he's defiant") into concrete, recent incidents. [source: Croake; Nash]
Steps: (1) Ask each parent for the main concern. (2) Ask for the most recent concrete example: what the child did, what you did, and what the child did next. (3) Ask how you felt in the moment (see A5). (4) Ask what you have already tried and how the child responded. [source: Lew, fact-gathering sequence] (5) Note each parent's position. Do not side with either parent. [source: Croake]
Example language (illustrative): "Take me to the last time it happened, yesterday if you can. What exactly did he do? What did you do? And then what did he do?"
Watch for: Parents talking in traits. Keep redirecting them to sequences. The interaction sequence, not the trait, reveals the goal.

A3. The typical day

Purpose / when: To find the recurring flashpoints (waking, dressing, meals, homework, bedtime) and the routines that pay off misbehaviour. It is a standard Adlerian family-counselling inquiry. [uncertain: described in the 1959 manual and in later Adlerian family-counselling texts (e.g. Christensen)]
Steps: (1) Ask the parent to walk through a recent ordinary day, from the first person awake to the last asleep. (2) At each point, ask who does what for whom and where friction happens. (3) Note services the child could do alone, repeated reminders, and any battles. (4) Choose one flashpoint as the target for the first recommendation. [synthesis for step 4]
Example language (illustrative): "Let's go through a normal school morning. Who wakes first? How does Sam get up? Who gets his clothes out?"
Watch for: Unnecessary service by parents, and reminding, coaxing and nagging. These are typical sources of undue attention.

A4. Family constellation inquiry

Purpose / when: To understand each child's position: birth order, sibling competition, alliances, and "good child / bad child" pairings. Done in the initial interview. [source: West; Croake]
Steps: (1) List the children in order with ages and gaps. (2) Ask which child is most different from the identified child, and in what way. (3) Ask who is most like each parent and who sides with whom. (4) Ask what each child is "the best at" and "the worst at". (5) Form a hypothesis: the identified child may have found their place by being the opposite of a successful sibling. [source: Croake, on the good/bad child split; specific questions = synthesis, consistent with Adlerian practice]
Example language (illustrative): "Of your three, who's the most different from Ella? How?"
Watch for: Parents praising the "good" sibling in contrast. The sibling pair is often a team in conflict. The open forum can show this on the chalkboard. [source: Croake]

A5. Identifying the mistaken goal (adult's feeling + child's response to correction)

Purpose / when: The core assessment step for every misbehaviour discussed. [source: Pepper; Lew; UNCG]
Steps: (1) Ask the adult how they felt in the moment and what they felt like doing. (2) Ask what the child did when corrected. (3) Match the pattern:
- Attention: the adult feels annoyed; the child stops when corrected but soon resumes.
- Power: the adult feels challenged or provoked ("you won't get away with this"); the child escalates or defies when corrected.
- Revenge: the adult feels hurt; the child becomes more hostile or hurtful when corrected.
- Display of inadequacy: the adult feels like giving up ("I don't know what to do with you"); the child stays passive and does not respond.
[source: Pepper] (4) Check against the playroom report and the child interview. (5) Treat the result as a hypothesis. Goals can vary with circumstance. [source: Mosak]
Example language (illustrative): "When he kept tapping the table after you'd asked him to stop, what did you feel: irritated, or more like this is a battle and I'm going to win it?"
Watch for: Parents describing what they thought rather than what they felt. Mixed pictures are common. The goal escalates (attention, then power, then revenge, then inadequacy) as discouragement deepens. [source: UNCG; Iowa State] Do not label a child by the chart. [source: Lew]

A6. Child interview

Purpose / when: After the parents leave. It hears the child's view and leads up to goal disclosure. Children below adolescence are usually seen without their parents. [source: Croake; Nash]
Steps: (1) Welcome the child, explain who is present, and say why the family has come, honestly and briefly. (2) Ask whether the child knows why they are here. (3) Ask about one specific incident the parents raised, without accusation. (4) Ask what the child thinks makes the behaviour happen. Children usually don't know or offer a cause. (5) Move to goal disclosure (A7). (6) Before ending, tell the child what will be recommended to the parents. [source: Croake, "children fully informed"; steps 2–4 = uncertain, recalled standard sequence]
Example language (illustrative): "Do you know why your mum and dad came here tonight?" … "They said mornings are hard. What happens in your house in the mornings?"
Watch for: Shame in front of an audience. Keep it light and respectful, and stop if the child becomes distressed. [synthesis] Note the sibling seating and who speaks for whom.

A7. Goal disclosure ("Could it be…?") and the recognition reflex

Purpose / when: To make the child aware of the purpose of a specific behaviour. It is used with children up to about age 10, and offered as a tentative guess, never as an accusation. [source: Mosak; UNCG; Nash]
Steps: (1) Ask permission: "Would you like to know what I think?" [illustrative] (2) Present the goals one at a time, in order. Verbatim forms reported for Dreikurs's model: "Could it be that you want special attention?"; "Could it be that you want to be the boss?"; "Could it be that you want to hurt others as much as you feel hurt by them?"; "Could it be that you want to be left alone?" [source: UNCG, citing Dreikurs 1974] (3) After each one, pause and watch for the recognition reflex: an involuntary smile or grin, a sudden glance up, a laugh or a shrug. These can show even when the child says "no". [source: UNCG; Mosak] (4) Stop at the goal that elicits the reflex. Phrase it about the specific behaviour. (5) Do not lecture afterwards. Share the finding with the parents and use it to choose the corrective response. [source: Lew]
Example language: see the verbatim forms above. For a specific behaviour (illustrative): "Could it be that when you tap the table, you want Mum to keep busy with you?"
Watch for: Teens and adults are better served by discussion than by a rapid four-question sequence. [synthesis, consistent with Mosak's age limit] Never use disclosure to win an argument or score a point. [source: Lew]

A8. Playroom observation and report

Purpose / when: While the parents are interviewed, children play under supervision. The worker's report is heard in the centre before the final segment. [source: Croake; Nash]
Steps: (1) A trained worker supervises without directing. (2) The worker notes cooperation, sibling roles, who seeks help, and how the children respond to limits. (3) The worker reports observed behaviour factually to the counsellor in the session. (4) The counsellor compares the report with the parents' account and the goal hypotheses.
Example language (illustrative report): "Mia asked me to help with every puzzle piece. When I said I thought she could do it, she pushed it away and sat down."
Watch for: Large discrepancies between the parents' account and the observed behaviour. These often point to how the parent's response maintains the problem. [synthesis]

A9. Open-forum discussion with the family as listeners

Purpose / when: After the interview segment. Counsellor and audience discuss the family's dynamics while the family listens. This reduces defensiveness ("a righter can listen") and gives the family encouragement from peers. [source: Croake, reporting Lowe]
Steps: (1) Seat the family in, or facing, the audience. (2) The counsellor summarises the constellation and the observed dynamics, ideally from what happened in the room. Diagram alliances on a chalkboard. (3) Invite audience comments. Steer them to encouragement and recognition of strengths, never gossip or criticism. [source: Croake; Nash] (4) Without an audience, the counsellor and a co-counsellor can discuss the family "as if they were absent", with permission. [source: Croake] (5) Return to the family for their reaction and agree on the recommendation.
Example language (illustrative, to the audience): "Did you notice that when Dad started to explain, the three teenagers all looked at Mum? What do you make of that?"
Watch for: Audience members judging the family, or giving advice from their own grievances. Interrupt and reframe immediately. A family member who looks humiliated means you should end the discussion segment. [synthesis]

A10. Recommendations and follow-up

Purpose / when: Closing segment of each session. The parents leave with a small, specific change to try. [source: Croake; Nash]
Steps: (1) Choose one flashpoint (from A3) and one corrective method (from section B) that matches the diagnosed goal. (2) Ask the parents what they think they could do differently, and guide them with questions before offering an answer. [source: Lew] (3) Specify who does what, when, and what not to do (e.g. no reminders). (4) When the plan concerns the children, both parents and children must agree to it. [source: Croake, reporting Pew & Pew] (5) Tell the child the plan. [source: Croake] (6) Assign reading: the relevant chapter of Children: The Challenge. [source: Nash] (7) At follow-up, review specific incidents, encourage effort, and adjust.
Example language (illustrative): "So this week, no reminders about getting dressed. You'll leave at 8:15 whatever Jake is wearing, and you'll tell him that tonight, once, in a friendly voice. Can you both do that?"
Watch for: Too many recommendations at once. Parents who adopt a recommendation as a new weapon. Expect the behaviour to get worse briefly when the payoff stops; warn parents about this in advance. [synthesis]

A11. Seeing the family as a unit (Pew & Pew variant)

Purpose / when: As an alternative to separate parent and child interviews, when rapport is good or the children are adolescents. It is reported to build trust and cohesion and to need fewer sessions. [source: Croake]
Steps: (1) State the presenting problem in front of everyone. (2) Invite each member's view. (3) Comment on strengths so that everyone hears it. (4) Ask the family to generate improvement ideas. (5) Agree on a plan that parents and children accept. [source: Croake]
Example language (illustrative): "Everyone's heard Mum say dinner is a battle. What would each of you change if you were in charge?"
Watch for: Parents dominating. If this happens, see the children separately. [source: Croake] One reported example (children finishing their meal outside in the carport) should be adapted to supervised, safe, non-shaming alternatives, such as the meal ending for the child at the table. [source: Croake for the example; safeguarding adaptation = synthesis]

B. Corrective methods taught to parents

Methods B4–B16 correspond to principles that Children: The Challenge presents chapter by chapter. Chapter wording is recalled, not verified [uncertain].

B1. Encouragement (as distinct from praise)

Purpose / when: It is the central corrective for every goal, and especially for display of inadequacy. Use it daily, not only after success. [source: UNCG; Pepper; Iowa State]
Steps: (1) Notice effort and improvement, not only results. (2) Comment on the deed, not the doer's worth: separate the deed from the doer. (3) Build on strengths the child already has. (4) Show faith in the child's ability: hand back tasks rather than rescuing. (5) Treat mistakes as learning and minimise them, with no criticism or red-penning. (6) Give recognition at neutral times, when the child is not demanding it. [source: UNCG; Pepper; West, "recognition instead of attention"]
Example language (illustrative): "You worked on that a long time." / "You figured out the first half on your own." / "I'm sure you can sort it out." Avoid "Good girl!" and "You're so clever!", which are evaluative praise.
Watch for: The child starts trying things, needs less reassurance, and recovers faster from mistakes. Praise-dependent children may at first reject encouragement or test it; persist. [synthesis]

B2. Natural consequences

Purpose / when: Let the child experience the result that follows from the world itself, with no adult intervention. Examples: no coat, feels cold; forgets lunch, feels hungry until the next meal. [source: UNCG; Iowa State]
Steps: (1) Identify a situation where the natural result is harmless and short-lived. (2) Decide in advance not to rescue, remind or lecture. (3) Stay friendly and show no "I told you so". (4) Afterwards, show empathy without fixing it.
Example language (illustrative): "Sounds chilly. What do you think you'll do tomorrow?"
Watch for: Never use a natural consequence where the result is dangerous: traffic, water, fire, medication, health, serious harm, or a very young child. [synthesis/safeguarding; Dreikurs is generally reported to have excluded danger [uncertain]] It is working when the child self-corrects without adult reminders.

B3. Logical consequences

Purpose / when: The adult arranges a result that is logically related to the misbehaviour and reflects the needs of the social order, not the adult's power. Examples: papers scattered are picked up; unfinished classwork becomes homework. It is chiefly for attention-seeking and order problems. [source: UNCG; Iowa State; Pepper]
Steps: (1) Choose a consequence directly related to the behaviour. (2) Where possible, set it in advance and jointly, for example in the family council. [source: Iowa State] (3) Offer the child a choice, e.g. "You can play quietly here or go to your room to be noisy" (illustrative). (4) Carry it out in a friendly, matter-of-fact tone, with no anger, moralising or extra penalty. (5) Make it time-limited and give the child a new chance soon. [Dreikurs & Grey 1968 list differences from punishment, among them: relation to the act, no moral judgment, focus on the present, a friendly voice. Recalled = uncertain]
Example language (illustrative): "The bikes left in the drive go in the garage until Saturday. You can try again then."
Watch for: A consequence delivered in anger, or chosen to make the child suffer, is punishment. Abandon it. [source: Iowa State, on punishment as revenge; Lew, on quick-fix misuse] Logical consequences often escalate power struggles. Avoid them while a power contest is active. [source: Pepper; UNCG] Safeguarding limits: no physical punishment, no withholding of food, sleep, medication or contact with a carer, no isolation outside or unsupervised, and no public shaming. [synthesis]

B4. Avoid undue attention (corrective for the attention goal)

Purpose / when: When the adult feels annoyed and the child stops, then starts again. [source: Pepper]
Steps: (1) Stop reminding, coaxing and nagging. (2) Ignore the bid for undue attention where it is safe to do so. (3) Give generous attention at times the child is not demanding it. (4) Optionally, agree on scheduled "special time" or negotiated attention turns on the adult's schedule. [source: Pepper] (5) Use a logical consequence if the behaviour disrupts others (B3).
Example language (illustrative): "I'm cooking now. At 6 we'll have our 15 minutes together, and I'm looking forward to it."
Watch for: A short burst of worse behaviour when attention is withdrawn. Hold steady. It is working when the bids drop and the child seeks contact in useful ways.

B5. Withdraw from the conflict: neither fight nor give in (corrective for power)

Purpose / when: When the adult feels challenged and the child intensifies the behaviour when corrected. [source: Pepper; West]
Steps: (1) Recognise the power contest by your own urge to win. (2) Stop, and say nothing more. Do not argue, threaten or bargain. (3) Openly admit you cannot force the child. [source: Pepper] (4) Physically withdraw if needed, to another room. Dreikurs's "bathroom technique" (the parent goes into the bathroom until the storm subsides) is widely attributed to Children: The Challenge [uncertain: recalled]. (5) Later, at a calm time, enlist cooperation, give the child legitimate power (jobs, choices, responsibilities), or bring the issue to the family council. [source: Pepper, "acknowledge the child's value and power"; West] (6) Move the issue onto neutral ground. [source: Pepper]
Example language (illustrative): "I'm not going to fight about this. I'll be in the kitchen when you're ready to talk." / later: "You're good at organising. Would you be in charge of the Saturday plan?"
Watch for: Withdrawal must never leave a young child unsupervised or at risk. Choose a place where you can still hear them. [synthesis] It is working when the outbursts shorten and the child starts cooperating on tasks with real responsibility.

B6. Act, don't talk

Purpose / when: At any recurring conflict where talk has become ammunition. [uncertain: 1964 heading recalled; principle consistent with Pepper and UNCG]
Steps: (1) State the arrangement once, in advance. (2) At the moment, act quietly. For example, stop the car until the fighting ends, or put down the book until the child is calm. (3) No lecture, no repeat warnings.
Example language (illustrative): (silently pulls the car over; when it is quiet) "Ready? Let's go."
Watch for: Hostile or punitive actions in disguise. Tone must stay neutral.

B7. Do the unexpected (avoid the first impulse)

Purpose / when: Your first impulse usually feeds the goal: scolding gives attention, insisting gives a fight, hurting back gives revenge, giving up confirms inadequacy. [source: Pepper, "do the unexpected"]
Steps: (1) Notice your impulse and use it as the goal clue (A5). (2) Do something different that does not pay off the goal: humour, a calm change of subject, an unexpected kindness. [source: Pepper]
Example language (illustrative): to a child loudly refusing to come: "Wow, that's a big voice. Can you do it even louder?" (said playfully, not mockingly)
Watch for: Sarcasm, which is retaliatory. Only use playful responses that respect the child.

B8. Corrective for the revenge goal

Purpose / when: When the adult feels hurt and the child becomes more hostile when corrected. [source: Pepper; West]
Steps: (1) Do not retaliate or show hurt in a way that pays off the goal. (2) Keep order with a minimum of restraint. [source: West] (3) Communicate respect and care steadily, aware that the child feels unloved. (4) Build relationships, including a well-regarded peer or sibling to draw the child in. [source: Pepper] (5) Expect provocative testing; stay patient and persistent. [source: Pepper]
Example language (illustrative): "That hurt. I'm not going to hurt you back. I still want things to be better between us."
Watch for: Revenge behaviour may reflect real mistreatment. Assess for abuse, bullying or trauma before assuming a mistaken goal. [synthesis/safeguarding]

B9. Corrective for display of inadequacy

Purpose / when: When the adult feels like giving up and the child is passive and "can't". [source: Pepper]
Steps: (1) Stop criticism and pressure. (2) Break tasks into very small steps the child can succeed at. (3) Show faith; do not take over. (4) Recognise any real effort, however small. (5) Avoid pity. [source: Pepper; pity = uncertain as 1964 heading] (6) Allow time to work at the child's own pace. [source: Pepper]
Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to do the whole sheet. Show me the first one, and I'll sit here while you do it."
Watch for: Rule out depression, learning disability, developmental conditions and neglect before treating it as a mistaken goal. Refer for assessment where indicated. [synthesis]

B10. Take time for training

Purpose / when: The child lacks a skill (dressing, chores, crossing roads with an adult). Teach the skill at a calm time, not mid-crisis. [uncertain: 1964 heading recalled]
Steps: (1) Choose a calm time. (2) Demonstrate, then do it together, then the child does it while you watch, then the child does it alone. (3) Encourage progress. [synthesis on the graduated steps]
Example language (illustrative): "Saturday morning let's practise making your own sandwich so you can do lunches yourself."
Watch for: Training given during a conflict, which becomes a lecture.

B11. Maintain routine and respect for order

Purpose / when: Chaotic mornings, bedtimes and meals. [uncertain: 1964 headings recalled]
Steps: (1) Agree a predictable routine, ideally in the family council. (2) Let the routine and the clock, rather than the parent, be the authority, e.g. the child's own alarm clock. (3) Follow through consistently.
Example language (illustrative): "Bath at 7, story at 7:30, lights out at 8. The clock says it's story time."
Watch for: Rigid routines used to control. Allow flexibility for illness and special days.

B12. Stay out of fights / put them all in the same boat

Purpose / when: Sibling fighting, which often serves to involve the parent. Siblings function as a team. [source: Croake, on the good/bad child split; 'same boat' = uncertain, 1964 heading recalled]
Steps: (1) Do not investigate who started it and do not take sides. (2) Treat all the children involved alike: they can all leave the room, or all settle it themselves. (3) Intervene immediately to separate the children when anyone could be hurt. [synthesis/safeguarding]
Example language (illustrative): "I'm sure you two can work it out. If you need to fight, you can both do it outside the living room."
Watch for: Real bullying or a large age or size imbalance. Here, the parent must protect the weaker child. [synthesis]

B13. Stimulate independence; refrain from overprotection

Purpose / when: Parents doing too much for the child. "Never do for a child what he can do for himself." [source: Lew, citing Dreikurs 1964]
Steps: (1) List the services you give that the child could do alone (use A3). (2) Hand one over at a time, with training (B10). (3) Tolerate imperfect results. (4) Encourage (B1).
Example language (illustrative): "From now on you pack your own school bag. I trust you to work out what you need."
Watch for: Hand-over tasks must be age-appropriate and safe. [synthesis]

B14. Be unimpressed by fears; avoid pity

Purpose / when: The child uses fears or misfortune to gain service or exemption. [uncertain: 1964 headings recalled]
Steps: (1) Acknowledge the feeling briefly. (2) Do not make a fuss or arrange life around it. (3) Express confidence that the child can cope.
Example language (illustrative): "It's dark. Your night-light's on and I'm downstairs. Goodnight."
Watch for: Genuine anxiety disorders, trauma responses or real threats (bullying, abuse) need assessment and specific treatment, not "unimpressed" handling. [synthesis/safeguarding]

B15. Make requests few and reasonable; follow through

Purpose / when: Parents give many requests and few follow-throughs, which teaches children to ignore them. [uncertain: 1964 headings recalled]
Steps: (1) Reduce demands to the essential ones. (2) Make each request once, clearly. (3) Follow through with action (B6) or a consequence (B3) every time.
Example language (illustrative): "Shoes on, please. We leave in five minutes." (then leave, or wait silently)
Watch for: Follow-through that turns into a power struggle. Switch to B5.

B16. Listen; talk with, not to; have fun together; watch your tone

Purpose / when: Rebuilding the relationship, which is a precondition for every other method. [uncertain: 1964 headings recalled; consistent with Pepper and West on mutual respect]
Steps: (1) Schedule regular enjoyable time together. (2) Listen without correcting. (3) Use a friendly tone. (4) Talk with children by asking their views, not lecturing.
Example language (illustrative): "What was the best bit of your day?"
Watch for: The relationship time being made conditional on good behaviour. Keep it unconditional.

C. Structures and group formats

C1. Family council (family meeting)

Purpose / when: A regular democratic meeting where all members share in plans, chores, complaints and decisions. It gives children legitimate power and is the main transfer structure. Introduce it once the acute power struggles have eased. Its fullest primary statement is Dreikurs, Gould & Corsini, Family Council (1974), which is not drawn on here. [uncertain for the detailed rules below: recalled; the general practice is attested in Nash's centre, which included a family-meeting demonstration]
Steps: (1) Fix a regular weekly time that does not move. (2) All members may attend, and attendance is voluntary. Decisions bind even those who stay away. (3) Rotate the chair and the secretary, including children. (4) Anyone may raise an item. Start with appreciations or good news. (5) Discuss with equal voice. Parents speak as members, not judges. (6) Aim for agreement rather than outvoting a minority. If there is no agreement, the existing arrangement stands until the next meeting. (7) Record decisions. They hold until the next council, so complaints mid-week are referred to the next meeting. (8) Plan something fun. [recalled, uncertain]
Example language (illustrative): "Any complaints go on the list on the fridge, and we'll talk about them on Sunday. Who'd like to chair this week?"
Watch for: Parents using the council to lecture or impose decisions. If they do, it collapses into a disguised power struggle. Complaints-only meetings are another risk; keep appreciations and fun in each one. It is working when children propose solutions and keep agreements they helped make.

C2. Parent study group

Purpose / when: Ongoing peer learning, often led by parents who have completed a group, reading Children: The Challenge chapter by chapter. It is used alongside or after centre counselling. [source: Grafton; Nash]
Steps: (1) Recruit 8–12 parents. (2) Assign one chapter or principle per week. (3) A leader summarises, then the group discusses how to apply it at home. (4) Each parent commits to one small change. (5) At the next meeting, members report outcomes, with emphasis on successes. [source: Nash; West, weekly success stories]
Example language (illustrative): "Let's go round. One thing you tried from last week's chapter, and what happened."
Watch for: The group turning into a complaint session. Keep the focus on what each parent can change. Refer families with clinical-level problems to counselling. [synthesis]

C3. Parent self-check questions

Purpose / when: Builds parents' independent problem-solving, especially in late follow-up and in groups. [source: Lew]
Steps: Teach parents to ask themselves, after an incident, a paraphrase of Lew's questions. (1) Is what I am doing working? (2) What is the child's goal, and does my reaction satisfy it? (3) What do I want to teach? (4) What am I actually teaching by what I say and do? (5) How can I stop feeding the misbehaviour and encourage better behaviour? [source: Lew, paraphrased]
Example language (illustrative): "Before next week, pick one blow-up and run it through the five questions on your own. Bring your answers."
Watch for: Parents starting to answer the questions without being prompted. That is the sign they are ready to end counselling.

C4. Open-centre evening (programme format)

Purpose / when: A community or school-based Family Education Centre for running counselling demonstrations and parent education together. [source: Nash; Grafton; West]
Steps: (1) Pre-session staff briefing and the intake report. (2) Interview of the family in focus before the audience (A2–A10). (3) Optional short theory input or a family-meeting demonstration. (4) Parent-led small groups, co-led and with professional backup. (5) Staff debrief. (6) A supervised playroom runs throughout. [source: Nash] Parent-run centres use a moderator, a panel answering audience questions, study-group sign-ups and an evaluation form. [source: Grafton] Some centres replaced single-family audience counselling with smaller "C groups" (couples, mothers, single parents, parents of adolescents), with an adolescent group co-led by a male and female pair. [source: West]
Example language (illustrative opener to audience): "Tonight's family has kindly agreed to work in front of us. We're here to learn and encourage. Every family here has days like theirs."
Watch for: Audience comments that judge or gossip. See also the safeguarding points in section 5.

C5. Derived programme: STEP (Dinkmeyer & McKay)

Purpose / when: A manualised, video-supported group course that packages Dreikursian ideas for parents of children aged 6–12. Separate versions exist for early childhood and teens. [source: ACF; age versions = uncertain, recalled]
Steps (1997 ed.): 7 weekly 2-hour sessions. Each session runs: discussion of the reading, a video demonstration and discussion, a skill-building exercise, a summary, and a home assignment. Topics: understanding yourself and your child; beliefs and feelings; encouragement; listening and talking; helping children cooperate; discipline; drug-use prevention. [source: ACF] STEP adds communication skills not central to Dreikurs, notably reflective listening, "I-messages" and exploring alternatives. These are STEP's own, not Dreikurs's. [uncertain: recalled from STEP materials]
Example language: use the published Leader's Resource Guide. Do not improvise it as Dreikurs.
Watch for: Fidelity to the leader's guide if you advertise "STEP".

C6. Derived programme: Active Parenting (Popkin)

Purpose / when: A video-based Adlerian course, first published 1983, with the 4th edition in 2014. It teaches mutual respect, non-violent discipline, encouragement, problem-solving, communication and family enrichment. It aims to build courage, responsibility, cooperation, mutual respect and self-esteem in children. [source: CEBC]
Steps: 6 weekly 2-hour facilitated sessions. Video vignettes contrast autocratic or permissive parenting with an "active" approach, followed by discussion, activities, a workbook and home assignments reviewed the next week. [source: CEBC]
Example language: from the published Leader's Guide.
Watch for: As with STEP, these are named programmes with their own materials. Use them as published.

5. Handling problems

The sources address some problems directly: parents dominating, parents unable to see beyond the immediate discomfort, misuse of methods, defensiveness, and negative trainee talk. [source: Croake; Lew; Pepper] Everything marked [synthesis] is my own guidance.

Safeguarding (read first) [synthesis, except where cited]

Screen at intake (A1), and again whenever new information emerges. Physical punishment, violence between adults, neglect, sexual harm, coercive control, or a child's fear of a parent all take you out of the education model. Follow your local child-protection procedures and statutory reporting duties. Do not continue open-forum work with that family.
Never interview in public a child who has disclosed, or may disclose, harm. If a disclosure starts in the centre, stop the public segment, move to a private space, and follow the procedure.
Translate dated examples into safe forms. Some historical illustrations involve leaving children outside, missing meals, or unsupervised natural consequences. No consequence may involve physical harm, deprivation of food, sleep, medical care or supervision, being locked out, or public humiliation. [historical examples: Croake (meal finished in the carport); others recalled, uncertain]
Revenge behaviour, display of inadequacy or intense fears may reflect trauma, abuse, bullying, depression or neurodevelopmental conditions. Assess before treating them as mistaken goals.
Audience format: get informed consent and child assent (A1); give a right to withdraw at any time; agree on confidentiality with the audience (no identifying talk outside); and allow no recording without separate consent.
Self-harm or suicide risk in a parent or adolescent: carry out a standard professional risk assessment and follow local pathways. This model does not address it.

Parents dominate the interview, or children won't speak

See the children separately, as the standard model does for under-adolescents. [source: Croake] With teens, see the family together only once rapport is good. [source: Croake]

Defensiveness (the "righter" parent, blaming between partners)

Use the open-forum or co-counsellor discussion: talk about the family's dynamics to the audience or a colleague while the family listens. This removes the need to defend. [source: Croake, reporting Lowe]
Counsellor neutrality: never side with one parent. [source: Croake] If the parent-child conflict appears rooted in the marriage, move to couples work, such as West's couples' C group. [source: West]

Parents can't look past the immediate crisis, or want quick answers

At first, supply one concrete recommendation. Then gradually shift to guiding questions, so parents don't become dependent on a counsellor's "bag of tricks". [source: Lew]

Methods misused as weapons (consequences as punishment, disclosure to outsmart)

Name the slip without blame. Return to the purpose: teaching social responsibility and encouraging the child. Check tone and anger. [source: Lew; Iowa State, on punishment]
Review with the self-check questions (C3).

Behaviour gets worse after the change [synthesis]

Expect it. When the payoff stops, the child tests whether the old goal still works. Prepare parents in advance. Keep the plan for at least 1–2 weeks before judging it, unless safety is at risk. Make sure encouragement at neutral times (B1, B4) has not been forgotten.

Non-adherence (recommendation not carried out) [synthesis]

Ask for the specific incident when they intended to act. Find the obstacle: a feeling ("I couldn't bear him being late"), a partner disagreeing, or the recommendation being too big.
Shrink it to one smaller step. Encourage the parent the way you want them to encourage the child, because parents are discouraged too. [source for treating parents with the same respect: Lew]

Parents disagree with each other [synthesis]

Agree on the smallest shared step. Each parent changes their own behaviour. The plan does not require the other parent to change first ("reaching a new agreement" [source: Lew]).

Persistent power struggle [synthesis + source]

Stop all logical consequences for now; they escalate power contests. [source: Pepper; UNCG] Shift to B5 (withdraw, give legitimate power) and the family council.

Stuck: goal hypothesis isn't fitting

Re-gather incidents. Goals vary with circumstance, and a child may hold different goals with different adults. [source: Mosak] Recheck the parent's feeling against the child's response to correction. Get playroom, school or teacher observations. [source: Pepper; Nash] Consider that the goal may be outside the four (see below).

Adolescents [synthesis + source]

Mosak limits the four goals mainly to children up to about age 10. [source: Mosak] West's centre added thrill-seeking for adolescents. [source: West] Use discussion and the family council more than rapid goal disclosure. Increase the adolescent's share of decision-making.

Audience-related difficulties [source: Croake; Nash; remainder synthesis]

Negative or gossipy comments: Croake found that talk about families became more encouraging when the family was present. Redirect comments to strengths at once. Brief audiences in advance on their role.
A family member who looks humiliated: end the public segment, and offer private follow-up.

Rupture with the counsellor (a parent feels judged or blamed) [synthesis]

Acknowledge it directly, and own any part you played. Restate that parents are clients and learners too, not defendants. [source: West, parents as clients] Return to their stated goals from intake.

Overwhelm (a parent is flooded by too many principles) [synthesis]

One recommendation per week. Assign one chapter, not the whole book. Celebrate one success at each follow-up.

Cultural fit [synthesis]

Explore the family's values about authority and respect. Present democratic methods as a way of building cooperation, not as rejecting the family's values.

Sources

Sources:

Books cited (not drawn on unless listed above):

Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. (1964). Children: The Challenge. New York: Hawthorn.
Dreikurs, R., Corsini, R., Lowe, R., & Sonstegard, M. (Eds.) (1959). Adlerian Family Counseling: A Manual for Counseling Centers. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
Dreikurs, R., & Grey, L. (1968). Logical Consequences: A New Approach to Discipline. New York: Meredith.
Dreikurs, R., Gould, S., & Corsini, R. J. (1974). Family Council. Chicago: Regnery.
Dreikurs, R. (1948). The Challenge of Parenthood. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
Dinkmeyer, D., & McKay, G. D. (1976). Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Dinkmeyer, D., McKay, G. D., & Dinkmeyer, D. (1997). STEP: Leader's Resource Guide and The Parent's Handbook. STEP Publishers.
Popkin, M. H. (1983). Active Parenting. Atlanta: Active Parenting.
Popkin, M. H. (2014). Active Parenting (4th ed.), Leader's Guide. Atlanta: Active Parenting Publishers.
Pew, W. L., & Pew, M. L. (1972). Adlerian marriage counseling. Journal of Individual Psychology, 28 (cited via Croake for family-as-unit work) [uncertain: exact citation not verified].

← Previous · I-103Antisuggestion, prescribing the symptom Next · I-105 →Adlerian brief therapy