Supernanny for Psychotherapists: Learning from a popular TV show

The simplicity of a television show about a British nanny solving family issues without much difficulty is quite appealing. Supernanny, an American reality tv show, was broadcast on ABC from 2005-2011 and continues to be viewed as reruns and on YouTube. In my own moments of personal stress, I (EB) rely on Supernanny Jo Frost. There’s a peaceful rhythm to her quick dispatch of horrible behavior.

The formula is straightforward. A family makes a desperate plea for help via video message to Supernanny. The problems are cartoonishly awful. They hit, bite, throw things, scream, curse, refuse to eat or sleep, or dominate the family by playing video games, or watching television, round the clock. The parents’ behavior is also uniquely abhorrent. While the kids don’t deviate that much from one particular brand of awful, the parents have a variety of behaviors that encapsulate the wrong way to manage every situation. There’s the dad who demands his “me” time, leaving his wife to do everything as he sits on his “throne,” the mom who would rather die than say “no” to the most outlandish child requests, the harsh parents who go too far in discipline, and the most regular visitors to the Supernanny universe– the ones who simply don’t have a clue about how to interact with their children. After Supernanny watches the video of the children behaving in awful ways, she registers disapproval to us, the audience, and promises to save the day.

Supernanny starts by observing the family in their home environment. The family almost always obliges by demonstrating outrageous actions. She makes little quips to the viewers about the terribleness of the children and the patheticness of the parents. Then, Supernanny jumps into action, meting out her own form of justice, usually to the parents, in the form of chastising. She brings out her box of tricks, typically involving the “naughty” spot ( a zone, room, step, rug, or chair) to teach the kids that the parents are the bosses and to clarify the reasons they are being punished. She sometimes adds strategies to build positive parenting time with the kids.

Supernanny also introduces tools such as behavior charts, whiteboards for the family rules, individualized treasure boxes, or comment boxes, depending on the family needs. What I like best is that, without fail, the family goes from naughty to nice in record time. At the end of each show, the kids and parents lament that she must go. Sometimes there’s a family update from a few months later demonstrating that the family never returned to their problematic ways.

I am hooked on the repetitive format, the immediate gratification of better and forever. Though I enjoy the theater, there is also much to critique from my perspective as a psychologist.

Supernanny Problems

There is a striking lack of curiosity about why people behave as they do. In contrast to Ross Greene’s (1999) “Kids do well if they can,” Supernanny’s motto appears to be “Kids do poorly if you let them.” The theory is that once the kids learn who’s boss, they will immediately behave.
There is a lack of any consideration of intergenerational factors in the genesis of the child’s problem. The parents’ own parenting experience is not part of the equation.
Mental illness does not seem to exist. Since the theory is that a child’s behavior is created and maintained by the parents’ poor responses, there’s no need to consider psychotherapy. Supernanny escapes IEPs, collaborative team meetings, and diagnoses.
There is almost no child abuse in Supernanny.
Everyone has the same average intelligence. Hence, there is no need to figure out if the child has learning challenges that would help understand their behavior. There is no benefit in psychological or neuropsychological testing.
There is no need to consider medication for the children or parents. Everything can be solved without it.
Supernanny does, in my opinion, overuse the “naughty spot” intervention. The use of time-out, as we might label her naughty spots, is a limited intervention; useful sometimes, though not for every situation. Giving it the appellation “naughty” is also controversial. Is it the kid, the behavior, or the spot that is naughty? Perhaps in England, where Supernanny is set, the use of naughty may be different.I am not sure how naughty plays in the United States.
Supernanny’s forced apologies and hugs are my least favorite of her interventions. I personally dislike when children are asked to say they are sorry when they aren’t. It teaches insincerity and that egregious behaviors can be erased with an apology. Children benefit from learning that apologies don’t make it all okay, especially when not paired with behavior change. The forced affection is also a mixed message. If the child is still upset with their parent, it makes the parent feel better to get a hug, but does not allow the child to have their feelings. Knowing that a hug is their choice, rather than a mandate, is an important message.

Supernanny Has a Lot to Admire, Too

As a psychologist for children and families, I find only a few skills to utilize from Supernanny’s repertoire, though I respect her efforts to build positive connections while establishing healthy rules and routines. Mostly, I find a lot to love in her proactive, confident, and positive approach. She makes families believe both in her and, ultimately, in their own power to change. I will keep watching because if life is a storm, then she’s a wonderful wizard who helps struggling families through to the other side. We, the viewing public, end each episode feeling a little bit better that one family’s everyday perils have been fixed. It’s like strangers in an accident who we need to see are okay. With Supernanny’s help, they are okay.

References
Greene, R. W. (1999). The explosive child. HarperCollins World.

To learn more about how to work on thoughtful parenting, visit our website at www.aligningforgrowth.com or read our book: Working with Parents in Child Psychotherapy.

Author biography: Elisa Bronfman and Johanna D. Sagarin are the authors of Working with Parents in Child Psychotherapy. Elisa Bronfman is a staff psychologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. She is also the first author of AMBIANCE, a research tool used to assess parent-infant attachment. Johanna Sagarin served as a vice-president in a community mental health agency for over 15 years and is now a professor of practice at Assumption University. They both have thriving private practices.