Consequences and "natural" consequences

[sassygromit]

Just in case anyone is interested I attach an article by Laura Markham about consequences/natural consequences, subjects which has come up a lot on different threads this last year.

It explains how consequences are punishments and as such will have negative impact according to research – below is an extract which lists them out - a somewhat scary list!

It explains that where a parent decides an outcome it is a consequence, not a “natural consequence” - even if the parent has tried to choose a consequence which is linked or related or in their mind a natural consequence.

Also that even if a child does something seemingly on purpose, it will still have a negative impact on the child and the relationship to issue a consequence or made up “natural” consequence

This is the extract, full link below:

“But punishment, even when it's called "consequences" [or “natural consequences”] doesn't work, at least not to help kids behave better. […] Research shows that children become more [..] able to "do right" when they're raised without punishment. That's because kids who are punished:

• Are worried about avoiding punishment, not about doing what's right. So they won't necessarily do right if the parent isn't watching.

• Are more likely to lie.

• Are less likely to take responsibility.

• Are more frightened, angrier, and less in control of their emotions.

• Feel worse about themselves and are thus less generous of spirit.

• Don't develop as much empathy or caring for others, and thus are less likely to "do the right thing."

• Have a less developed sense of ethics, because they are more concerned with force and power.

• Learn both the "victim" (which is how they perceive themselves) and the "bully" (how they perceive the parent) side of the relationship, so they're more likely to bully.

• Are more likely to use force to solve problems.

• Are more likely to feel disconnected from, and disrespectful towards, the parent, and thus are less open to the parent's influence.

• Don't feel completely safe with parents who punish them, and therefore don't fully process their emotions or learn to manage them.

www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/Consequences_Punishment

Sorry I forgot to say - I am an adoptee and parent, not an adopter

*subjects which have come up alot, not has

I agree with the principals but I don’t like the tone of some of it…

If your darling angel doesn’t do what you want them to, then apparently your relationship is in danger… think that’s a bit ridiculous!!! Children do push boundaries regardless of your relationship.

I do however totally agree that good relationships = good behaviour but I think it’s just a bit much to say that it’s the root cause of misbehaviour!!!

Also I don’t like the judgemental tone of punishments. My parents used punishments and often do the right thing when they aren’t looking!!!!

Behaviour management needs to sit in the context of wider child development, both emotionally and cognitively. Research into early moral development for children indicates that pre-puberty children are motivated in their behaviour by reward and adverse consequences, because the empathy needed to want to be “a good person” requires a level of cognitive processing they don’t gain until mid/late puberty.

While I agree with some of her principles, I don’t like the either/or nature of her argument. It’s possible to apply consistent consequences for behaviour while also teaching children to understand and process their emotions. In the example she gives of people ending up in prison, she overlooks the fact that a very high proportion of people who offend have significantly traumatic histories and no experience of attuned, loving parenting - ie punishment that is abusive or violent and no empathy or compassion from their parents or care givers. Research shows the process of rupture and repair in parent/child relationships is important for the development of secure attachment in children. So consequences may be part of that, but goes hand in hand with ensuring the relationship between parent and child is restored, and giving space and support to understand what drove the behaviour in the first place.

I also wonder how much of her work and research relates to children with cognitive or processing disorders/delays. I know for my DD the fact that natural consequences for the same behaviour can shift and change depending on environment means she struggles a lot because her sense of object permanence is shaky to say the least. For example, if she hits a child in the playground we remove her from the situation, if she hits a child at after care they’ll try a restorative process, if she hits at school the consequences will be imposed by the school. She needs to know that X behaviour = Y every time for her to process her emotions, otherwise she gets so caught up in why the results were different she can’t get to what caused the behaviour in the first place.

I like a lot of this woman’s work, but there’s no one size fits all in parenting, as in life.

specialcase I might be wrong but I don't think she is saying If your darling angel doesn’t do what you want them to, then apparently your relationship is in danger… think that’s a bit ridiculous!!! Children do push boundaries regardless of your relationship - or to illustrate what I think she is saying, my dc push boundaries and complain all the time and sometimes fall out of their windows of tolerance - if I am on form I deal with it by asserting what needs to happen and sympathising with them but still asserting what needs to be done - if I am not on form I threaten outlandish consequences or yell (cough cough) but then reconnect. I can easily see the former is the way to go but I agree with you that where it doesn't happen like that, it isn't all disaster and danger, because there is a relationship there to repair. I think ( I think) the point is (a) if you know what you are supposed to do it is easier to repair and reconnect when you don't do it and (b) if you are a parent who uses consequences as a go to, then her advice is to rethink, and if your dc (I am not saying you, I mean generally) lie, etc, then these are the connections you can make between your discipline methods and how your dc are.

I think she has worded it strongly and clearly because there are still a lot of people who believe that punishment without, necessarily, repairing and reconnecting is the best way to teach lessons - I have seen her appear on a chat show talking to someone who believed that smacking a child was the only way of teaching the child for example

jellycatspyjamas I don't think that this is her work as such - she is a clinpsych and her advice is based on the vast body of child development research - where it is her personal opinion or interpretation she says that - where there is conflicting research she says that too - this is the case in other articles she has done such as whether dc should go to nurseries etc. It isn't so much one size doesn't fit all it is more that it is a vast body of research and there are not children who fall outside it because it is a vast body of research. As far as I can work out trauma is a specialist part of the same body of research.

I would say it is especially applicable to adopted children and children who have suffered trauma, unless there are diagnosed disorders in which case the child will be under the care of a professional, but she does make the point that if a child's problems are severe then seeking professional help is necessary.

I am assuming then that there is not research which supports conseqeunces (reward and incentive is slightly different I think), but if you think differently, could you link it for completeness?

I think if consequences are imposed consistently then it means they are ineffective. I think her point here is that if children are consistently doing the wrong thing, eg hitting a sibling, it is because of their control centre isn't fully developed. They know it is wrong, they don't need a consequence to tell them that, and getting a consequence each time will be disheartening for them and reduce their confidence in themselves that they can do the right thing. It is clearly not working if it has to be done consistently - by definition - so there will be other more effective ways of dealing with whatever the problem is.

My thinking here, fwiw, is that where dc, who generally want to be on the right track, do something wrong or are aggressive or appear controlling etc it is because they have fallen outside their window of tolerance and to get them back in solves the problem. If one issues consequences or other controlling strategies, it is likely to push them further outside their window and that will silently multiply the problems. If the dc does not want to do the right think it is an indication that they are far out of their window of tolerance and professional help is needed.

"I think her point here is that if children are consistently doing the wrong thing, eg hitting a sibling, it is because of their control centre isn't fully developed. They know it is wrong, they don't need a consequence to tell them that, and getting a consequence each time will be disheartening for them and reduce their confidence in themselves that they can do the right thing."

Interesting but I don't think I agree with that.

• first off, if no consequences are enforced for hitting a sibling, it seems quite unfair to the sibling.
• secondly, if no consequences are enforced, you're basically telling the child that it's okay to hit a sibling - and potentially damaging the sibling's sense of self-worth by telling them it's okay to be hit by family members.

"It is clearly not working if it has to be done consistently - by definition - so there will be other more effective ways of dealing with whatever the problem is."

Not necessarily. When you're teaching your child to speak, or their alphabet, or numbers, etc - you have to repeat it many times for it to stick. It doesn't mean it's not working or that you're teaching it wrong, just that it takes more than one try for it to stick.

Overall, I think it's important for children to learn boundaries, and that they can't do whatever they want with no consequence. What is really important is that consequence should come with dialogue and understanding. When my kid misbehaves I do punish him, but :

• I always explain why he's being punished, what he did wrong and what I expect in the future
• at the end of punishment I always hug him and reassure him that my love is not dependant on behaviour.

marty13 I don't think the research supports allowing siblings to hit each other or to do what they want or to not have boundaries - more that these things are more effectively taught without punishment - eg good good behaviour comes from a child feeling good about themselves, empathy for others, self control - these things aren't taught by punishment.

Do you mind me asking, what sort of punishments do you use with your dc, just out of interest?

A poster upthread has said that there is research which supports use of consequences and I googled to try to find this last night, and I did find a lot of parenting sites which promoted the use of consequences, with advice along the lines of "consequences such as removal of toys or ignoring child is positive and not a punishment". The research I found was related to negative outcomes for punishment, physical punishment, harsh verbal discipline which fell short of abuse, positive outcomes where there is support and talking. I found a lot of commentary that many parenting sites and books are not evidence based and the dangers of this and that some parenting methods are being taught which research has shown to be damaging - my assumption is that this applies to the adoption arena as well. Also that it has taken a lot of time - ie decades - for research such as dangers of hitting a child to start to filter down into the population, let alone anything else. There are also calls for more research, as ever.

Evidence based sites and books advise along the same lines as as ahaparenting - eg triple p says similar things.

But it can still be confusing as determining whether discipline is appropriate for a child is a judgement call, distinguishing between "limits" and "consequences" and also distinguishing between different developmental stages. Also how the discipline is used eg evidence based parenting supports giving warnings and counting to 3 before action.

Anyway, in conclusion if anyone can link research which adds to this, I would be grateful to see it.