Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Flip

Original poster

Is 2 too early to learn consequences?

15 replies

malteser17 · 26/03/2015 21:40

Our 2 yo DS is generally well behaved but likes to push boundaries. We are well aware of the saying "Pick your battles" and as a general rule we let him be cheeky to an extent and we do try to only tell him off when he is doing something that either hurts someone else or could potentially hurt himself.

Tonight, however, he was bouncing on the settee and when DH told him to stop he did it again. We tried to explain that if he didn't say sorry then he would not get a story before bed (this was just before he was due to go to bed anyway). He refused to say sorry so we tried putting him to bed without a story which just resulted in him screaming so much he threw up in his cot.

At what age can toddlers learn that there are consequences to their actions? I know he understands when he is being naughty as he has a cheeky grin on his face and I don't want to stop him enjoying himself but I don't want him to grow up thinking he can get away with everything! All advice much appreciated :-)

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Pico2 · 26/03/2015 21:48

We did the naughty step - count to 3 then 1 minute on the step per year. It worked quite well for DD.

pasbeaucoupdegendarme · 26/03/2015 21:58

My dd is 2 and three quarters (nearly) and we've definitely been going in for "consequences" for a long time now. If you do x then y will happen (I guess that's the premise of consequences!!). We tend to use fairly instant consequences, like you describe doing. I do think they're too young to get "if you do x now, then y can't happen later", but I think they are old enough to start learning about what they mean.

LittleMissRayofHope · 26/03/2015 22:05

Dd is 2 yr 8 months. Been doing this a while now.
Time out - count to 3 and 1 min per year in time out. Starts over each time she gets up.
Choice and consequence.
She goes to bed without a story roughly 2 times a month. I confiscate toys all day that all go up on a shelf so she can see them and she doesn't get them back that day.
But it's always spelled out to her before it happens. So
'If you don't stop that I'll count to 3 and you will have a time out' or 'throw that toy again and I confiscate it until breakfast time tomorrow'
It usually works, not always.
Did take a few weeks for her to see that I always followed through on my threats.

Littlef00t · 27/03/2015 08:21

The thing is, consequences are taught from a v early age. I 'taught' dd the consequences of playing at the TV stand were to be moved away from it. The consequences of biting me while bf were to be moved away and a delay to milk. The consequences of throwing the spoon on the floor is a longer wait for yoghurt.

I guess your main challenge is teaching consequences that are relatable to the action you don't approve of.

NoraRobertsismyguiltypleasure · 27/03/2015 08:24

If he continued to do something he'd been told not to at 2 he is most likely looking for a bit of one to one attention. Stop what you are doing and sit him down with something o do or read him a story for a few minutes. He will then have forgotten about bouncing on the sofa.

poocatcherchampion · 27/03/2015 08:28

I'll disagree and say too young. Although I think some of the pp are talking about punishment.

They are trying the boundaries, you just need to make the boundaries firm.

What's a story got to do with bouncing on the sofa?

ThinkIveBeenHacked · 27/03/2015 08:31

Im all for consequences. Bouncing on the sofa = being taken off the sofa and sat on the floor.

I wouldnt expect to be told "sorry" for it. I do however insist my DC say sorry to others if they bump into them/similar.

Agree with a pp about attention seeking.

ByTheWishingWell · 27/03/2015 08:38

I think the consequence to not acting safely should just be that you make sure they are safe. For DD this means: Bouncing on the sofa- being lifted off the sofa onto the floor. Being silly near roads- going into the buggy/ using reins.

She isn't 2 yet, but I would think it's a bit young for punishment, which is what the unconnected consequence of taking away a story is.

Sulis · 27/03/2015 08:41

If bouncing on the sofa is a problem, why not just divert him onto something else equally or more fun? He will only push boundaries if you put loads in place. Why not just divert play to things that you're ok with?

Original poster

malteser17 · 27/03/2015 12:44

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think our mistake was to not connect the consequence with the action, and as some of you said, it was probably linked to attention seeking as well. Gosh this parenting lark is hard sometimes!

OP posts:

Ferguson · 28/03/2015 14:50

Certainly at two they CAN learn 'consequences', but the trick is to remove any temptations, or defuse any situation before it becomes a problem, so that, ideally, no punishment is ever (or hardly ever!) needed. Like 'defensive driving', you anticipate what mistake the other fool might make!

If you watch "The Dog Whisperer", he manages to control dogs better than some parents can control their children.

"Parenting HARD?" - It's supposed to be FUN (for all parties).

pasbeaucoupdegendarme · 28/03/2015 18:39

Ferguson, that sounds great in theory but totally unrealistic in practice. There are always going to be times when you haven't predicted what the child will do and when some kind of consequence needs to be taught. If we always remove any danger/activity that could result in them getting it wrong, they never learn anything for themselves or how to regulate themselves.

And yes, OP, parenting is hard sometimes!! Doesn't mean to say it's not a load of fun as well, but it's hard work too.

Sulis · 29/03/2015 07:57

Pasbeau - it's not totally unrealistic in practice at all. None of my four kids have ever had 'consequences' (or, to use its more honest term, punishment) and they're always being complimented on how lovely and mature and sensible they are. I know many, many families who can say the same.

antumbra · 29/03/2015 08:06

I have never punished.

My kids are fantastically well behaved.

OP your 2 year old is energetic and enjoys jumping. Physical activity is great fun.
She needs steering towards appropriate activities, not punishment.
A simple "we don't jump on sofas but we can play at being frogs on the floor" would help. Withholding a bedtime story is just mean.
Would she like a little trampoline?

Goldmandra · 29/03/2015 17:04

Consequences are things that happen as a result of something you did, e.g. being lifted off the sofa onto the floor. They work best when they are logically connected to the behaviour and teach the child something, i.e. my parents will stop be doing that because it is dangerous.

Very tiny children can understand consequences, e.g. if I hit myself in the face with this brick, it will hurt.

Time on a naughty step is a punishment. It teaches nothing relevant to the behaviour and achieves very little other than that an adult can make you do it. Children need to be quite old before they are able to make the link between their behaviour and an arbitrary period of time sitting on a step.

Acknowledging the behaviour you want to see, identifying and managing the reasons behind the behaviour and being disappointed when you have to make decisions that are the natural consequences of their less acceptable behaviour work much better than punishments.

Flip