Step One Case Studies
To assist you in understanding the method, we will follow some children at different ages through the method, giving examples of dialogue and actions that could occur to promote conscience and self-discipline as the adult and child address different typical problems.
A: Jeremy, age 2-4 years, Problem: Rough Play
Jeremy lives next door to Sarah, and they were both born at around the same time. Their mothers are friends, and enjoy having the children play together, although Jeremy's mother is aware that Sarah's mother has some concerns about Jeremy's rough and tumble play. Every time Sarah cries or gets hurt, she has a tendency to blame Jeremy, and both mothers get a little defensive from time to time about their children.
Jeremy's mother has been distraught when things go wrong in the play because she doesn't wish to disturb the adult friendship. Sarah's mother has also been distraught because she thinks Jeremy's mother is not doing enough to keep Sarah from getting hurt. This situation is potentially explosive for both parents in ways that will not help their children. Jeremy's mother had tried talking to Jeremy, listening to Jeremy to understand his feelings toward Sarah, and all methods of time outs and consequences. Jeremy's mother decides to implement Dr. Lyn Martin's method of discipline after having had a 'Why can't you be nicer to Sarah!!!!" screaming fit one day.
That night, as she was tucking Jeremy into bed, she read him a story from the recommended reading list. She chose a book in which a child misbehaved, and then things got better (like "Rotten Ralph", by Jack Gantos). She did this a few minutes earlier than usual to leave time and energy to implement Step One of the method. She talked about something "Rotten Ralph" had done in the book, and then described the three reasons she would have to say "no" to Jeremy. She mentioned a time that Sarah cried, and asked if he understood why she cried. She reminded him that he had been given a time out and he remembered it. She asked if he could figure out which of the three reasons he got the time out, and Jeremy correctly figured out that he had hurt someone else. They both agreed that this would not happen again, and turned off the light.
In this very young example, it would not be a good idea to explain the consequence or raise curiosity as to what would happen should the behavior reoccur. At this age, an "if — then" declaration from the parent might be taken as a dare by the child to go ahead and try it again. Also, at Step One, the parent is merely presenting the rationale for the method. After it has been used completely one time, all the steps will be understood.
B. Jennifer, age 5-8, Problem: Lying and Stealing
Jennifer is in the early years of elementary school. She lives in a typical neighborhood with many other children her age nearby. She enjoys school and has friends. She is generally problem-free, but lately her mother has noticed things in her room that are unfamiliar. When she asks where Jennifer got them, she always says, "I found it". At first this seemed plausible, but as time went by the items seemed less and less of the sort to be lost and more and more of them were noticed. While Jennifer's mother didn't want to accuse her daughter of lying or stealing, she was fairly sure she was doing both. She has read the psychology books and addressed issues of insecurity that often lead to stealing, but she still does not know how to approach the problem directly.
She decided to implement the Martin Method. She began by reading "The Empty Pot" by Henry Holt, a lovely book with a lesson in honesty. After discussing the book and having Jennifer illustrate that she understood the idea of honesty, she presented the story of the three "no's". They discussed why lying and stealing are wrong. They discovered that there were two "no's" for lying and stealing — you could hurt others and yourself. The next day while Jennifer was at school, Jennifer's mother gathered as many of the "found" objects as she could and arranged a meeting with Jennifer's teacher at school and several parents of Jennifer's friends. Between them, she determined that, indeed, some of the objects had formerly belonged to Jennifer's classmates or friends. The adults were able to confirm that these items were not given or traded by the children.