logical consequences for young children are punitive

[ArmsOfLove]

I've seen a lot of threads lately asking about how to find consequences, how to apply them, what they should be in this or that situation, so I thought it would be a great time to start a conversation about this

Punishments speak to things that are added to a lesson with the belief that some negative experience will teach or reinforce the lesson - or, put another way, the belief that children can't learn unless they suffer in some way. It's the belief that the suffering will make them not want to do the thing that caused it. And there is a level of logic to it - but young children don't have logic AND more often it piggy backs on the lesson that was part of the experience and when something piggy backs it jumps on top of and actually distracts the child from the lesson. Instead of reinforcing the lesson, the child focuses energy on the thing piggy backing on it and is more likely to miss the entire lesson "I told you so," is a basic and common piggy back. The child is no longer thinking about what they learned. Rather, they are distracted by the lesson that their parent always knows more and they aren't smart enough to figure it out.

The difference between logical and natural consequences is very simple - Natural Consequences will (or are likely to) happen UNLESS you prevent them. I'm a big believer in determining what they are and then letting them experience the ones they are old enough to both survive and learn from.

As children approach 10 and have developed logic there is room for logical consequences, but they do not teach lessons. The best they can do is reinforce lessons already learned. Or buy some time between when they get it but aren't able to consistently carry it out.

The better questions with little ones - and by little I mean under the age of 10-ish - are:

What will set them up for success?
What lessons do they need to learn in this situation/from this experience?
What is the roadblock to their compliance and how can I remove it?

The truth is children learn all the time without pain or suffering or negative lessons being reinforced. And it's okay to do the parenting thing and set them up for success without needing to justify it or find a reason to argue that it is the best choice.

So, does too much screen time leave your child not feeling or behaving at their best? Then limit screen time! Not as a consequence. Not because of needing to teach them a lesson. Just because doing so is GOOD parenting!

Does your child have a hard time playing with a particular child? Either hold off on play dates or plan to be involved and hands on during. Not because they can't do it, but because you are setting them up for success!

Same with places you go, foods you eat, activities you participate in . . . make the best choices as the parent and let them learn the lessons they are learning from it all Knowing that mom and dad are going to set them up for success and always have their back are better lessons than too much fighting means we lose video games. At least I think so

[The Tickle Momster]

Thank you for this reminder. As my kids grow older, I tend to forget that the younger ones haven't learned the same things the older ones have. I appreciate the age reminder too.

[bananacake]

Perhaps there's some overlap between what might be labeled "logical consequences" and "setting them up for success"?



Like if a child throws a toy and hurts their sibling or friend by hitting them with a toy, I'd put the toy away and tell them, "Toys are for playing, but not for throwing. We'll try to play with that toy again later." To me, that is both a logical consequence and an attempt to set them up for success.

[WanderingJuniper]

Originally Posted by bananacake

Perhaps there's some overlap between what might be labeled "logical consequences" and "setting them up for success"?



Like if a child throws a toy and hurts their sibling or friend by hitting them with a toy, I'd put the toy away and tell them, "Toys are for playing, but not for throwing. We'll try to play with that toy again later." To me, that is both a logical consequence and an attempt to set them up for success.

Nor do I think your example BK is punitive because of the intent behind it. The intent is not to instill any form of pain or suffering to teach a lesson. It is to keep the toy playable another day so it is not broken, keep other family members safe.

[Codi]

I think there will be some obvious overlap. And that's ok. They aren't all completely separate.

Love this post Crystal! Always a good reminder that even my oldest is not even 10 yet and JUST NOW starting to grasp logic.

[bananacake]

Perhaps I'm missing something? I hear the subject as a definitive statement - that logical consequences for young children are always punitive. I'm confused.

[ArmsOfLove]

Originally Posted by bananacake

Perhaps there's some overlap between what might be labeled "logical consequences" and "setting them up for success"?



Like if a child throws a toy and hurts their sibling or friend by hitting them with a toy, I'd put the toy away and tell them, "Toys are for playing, but not for throwing. We'll try to play with that toy again later." To me, that is both a logical consequence and an attempt to set them up for success.

What I would suggest is to not view it as a logical consequence. It's less about dictionary definition and more about the power of the tool. Consequences are inherently reactive and setting up for success is proactive. What it looks like when applied is where the real difference is.

Consequence:

Rule is linked with consequence
Child breaks rule
Consequence is enforced

Even when this is fair and reasonable, it's punitive if the child lacks logic and has not come to understand the rule or doesn't have the impulse control or discipline to do it consistently.

Setting up for Success:

Parent(s) see a problem behavior and make the connection between that and too much screen time
In order to set children up for success the choice is made to limit/remove screen time
This choice is put in place and shared with the children as a new way they are going to do things.

Yes - there are times when there is no notable "time to sit and consider and then put a plan in place." If your child is swinging a stick at people then by all means take it! And your example of taking the toy - absolutely! And it is logical for you to do it - and literally based on definition it's a logical consequence - but when people start thinking about logical consequences it's a reactive thought process.

Where this is important is more when we sit down and go, "What consequence can I use to drive this lesson home?" Even if we want to drive it home gently. Even if we choose things that are inherently gentle

Mostly this distinction is for US - it's for how we are viewing the situation, the parenting choice, and the relationship with our children

[Beth1231]

I find a lot is tied up behind intent. And the words and tone spoken to the child.
Brenna' s example could be spoken gently,kindly with little fanfare. Or it could be huffed in exasperation that communicates "I told you so;that's what you get."
If the intent of my heart is in a bad place,"consequences" becomes more semantics than anything else.
I wanted to share that in case someone else struggles with this as well.

Those questions are good ones to be reminded of,thank you,Crystal!

[ShiriChayim]

See, I actually think that the concept of consequences is a very important one in teaching my children as they learn and grow-especially because they are still developing their ability to have logic. Everything we do-whether intentionally or not-has consequences. They might be good, bad, or neutral, but they are undeniably a part of our lives. It's an important part of learning and growing to be able to start to think about those things, and it's something I'm continually working to teach and develop in my children. Part of that is responding to their choices with an age appropriate, relevant response that teaches them the consequences of their actions-sometimes finding the appropriate response is one of the hardest things I have to do as a mom.

Crystal, I'm a little confused at the emphasis I hear you placing on being proactive. I mean, I agree it's really important, but I don't think that it can entirely take the place of the concept of consequences, nor would I want it to. I teach my children that both are very important.

Consequence:

Rule is linked with consequence
Child breaks rule
Consequence is enforced

Even when this is fair and reasonable, it's punitive if the child lacks logic and has not come to understand the rule or doesn't have the impulse control or discipline to do it consistently.

Setting up for Success:

Parent(s) see a problem behavior and make the connection between that and too much screen time
In order to set children up for success the choice is made to limit/remove screen time
This choice is put in place and shared with the children as a new way they are going to do things.

I might be reading you wrong (can you clarify if I'm totally off here?) but I actually disagree with your characterization here. And it actually doesn't really go with what I've heard you talk about in the past either. I know you've shared you did the "family gets your best, or no one gets the rest" rule in the past which doesn't really jive with what I'm reading you say above, so I'm thinking I really must be misunderstanding you .

I would say that under the setting up for success part: sometimes it's not about screen time, or not enough play time, or needing extra alone time, or hunger or whatever. Sometimes it's because the child is just in a bad mood (happens) or is really immature (happens more often) or is 3, or amazignly creative in their thirst for adventure/artistic expression, or whatever else. And when that happens I do think it's really important to teach them that your actions do have consequences-to help provide the logic that they're still developing in their own brains. The goal of consequences doesn't HAVE to be "to make them feel bad enough" (I agree-if you've gone there it's not consequences, it's a punishment). But we talk in our home all the time about how when you treat others good-you tend to get the good back at you (good consequences!!!! ) and when you treat them unkindly you tend to get the same back (not so good consequences ).

[twoplustwo]

Originally Posted by ArmsOfLove

Mostly this distinction is for US - it's for how we are viewing the situation, the parenting choice, and the relationship with our children

This is what is so important for ME. Because I know I want to be gentle, I know exactly what kind of mom I want to be, but I need to learn how to think about it the right way so that I can be the kind of mom I want to be when Im all triggered!

If that makes any sense at all.

[ValiantJoy07]

I really connect with what Heather said . I'm not trying to make my kids feel bad. But I feel like when we take consequences off the table we tie parents hands behind their back.

I felt this way for a couple years after I came to GCM and I just decided to do what worked for me and forget the semantics of what ever it is or whatever it's called.

I think part of my job as a parent is to make the consequences clear to my children. Not in a bad way...But for every action or choice there is a consequence..Good consequences...Uncomfortable consequences...It's my job to help them make the connections, kindly, with love, in a way they can hear.

When I hear "You just have to be proactive and try harder if they are misbehaving" I hear "you're failing, it's your fault".

When really YES I need to be proactive. And YES, I need to absolutely set them up for success.. But some times kids are immature. Some times they are in a bad mood. Some times they need a firm consequence ("this is what happens when...", every time) that says, "you may not treat others this way."

It means sitting on the bench (next to me) when they need to calm down at the park.
It means the blocks go away when you're throwing them. And we only play with the foam blocks for a while.
It means we stay home when you're crabby because I know you need the rest.
It means getting held and snuggled when they're hurting and need some thing to ground them. Or being placed in a safe spot where they can have their big feelings out (because some kids don't want to be touched or helped when they are upset, and I will not be pulled into that crazy loop).

I don't see any thing wrong with the word "consequence" it isn't "punishment". It is, "the thing that happens next..." And life is full of them.

[MrsDuck]

I've been really working on internalizing this concept lately. I had a bit of an ah-ha moment when I realized that really what I'm doing is to help make it happen. So for for the toy throwing example the way I word it in my head is "you seem to be unable to not throw the toy, so I will help you (by putting it out of reach)". For ME when I say the consequences out loud it is almost always punitive. but if I just quietly put the toy away without making a big thing of it, my response is almost always gentle.

[Carini]

[ReadingMommy]

Originally Posted by ValiantJoy07

I don't see any thing wrong with the word "consequence" it isn't "punishment". It is, "the thing that happens next..." And life is full of them.

This is how I use the word consequence too. It is boundary-setting, but in a related way that is ultimately meant to improve the situation or protect the child/others. For example, we don't hit other people. When we do hit somebody, there may be a consequence of having to be separated from that person until we can control ourselves better.

ETA: And I do think the parent is often responsible for imposing the consequence. My child was not following my front yard safety rules today, so I had to make the decision to make him come inside and not allow him to go back outside. These are consequences I am imposing, but I believe that is appropriate in this situation and many others. He may not logically understand everything yet, but I do, and I believe I am doing the right thing by imposing those consequences whether he understands or agrees or not.

I do agree, however, that prevention or "setting up for success" is the best first step. But I'm human and I won't catch everything before it happens.

[Aerynne]

I don't have any trouble with imposing logical consequences. I admit sometimes it's a punishment by another name to make parents feel better. But sometimes it's not. It's not just taking away the stick that the child is whacking someone or something with, although that is a logical consequence. It's not a natural consequence because it doesn't just happen. It's taking away the harmonica if the child is blowing on it harshly and you have a headache and have asked them to stop a few times. That's a consequence, too. Sometimes we need to help our kids be easier to live with so we don't lose our ever loving MINDS.

People don't scream in the car when I am driving (babies get a pass). Driving with a screaming child is dangerous and extremely infuriating. So my kids have to get out of the car if they scream. It really rarely ever happens because we do a good job setting up for success- potty before getting in the car, making sure kids are fed and happy, have a drink so they aren't thirsty, trying not to drive too much and make sure they have time to stretch their legs as well, talk to them and keep them happy that way, listen to music, etc. That's all setting them up for success and very important. Of course all of that doesn't happen 100% of the time but we do our best. But setting kids up for success is not a comprehensive parenting plan. After all of that, if the child is screaming, then they WILL get out of my car because they are not allowed to subject us to having to listen to that. They won't be left alone obviously, but the car is stopped and they are removed from it. If we are close to home I have them walk with a parent to our house and if we aren't I have them walk with a parent or older sibling for awhile so they realize that riding in the car is a privilege for people who can behave themselves. And once they learn (once or maybe twice) that I mean business about that, then they don't do it anymore. I consider that good parenting. Call it punitive or not, but a kid who will not behave appropriately in the car is loses the privilege of riding in the car. They do understand it, even preschoolers. At least mine do.

Kids do not want to be raging out of control. They don't like it and we don't like it and it's not good for anyone. Sometimes they need someone bigger to show them that they cannot act like that and save them from their own anger (don't get me wrong- this isn't a TTUAC forum and I'm not advocating shaming, name calling, spanking, isolating, etc) A kid who is raging out of control is often asking to be rescued from their own anger, which terrifies them. Get them to calm down (obviously spanking wouldn't even accomplish this) and teach them appropriate behavior.

Setting kids up for success is not a comprehensive parenting plan. It's a great start, though.

I feel like a lot of this is mincing words. How is taking a stick away when a child is using it to hit people anything other than a logical consequence? I get saying "This certain logical consequence is too harsh" or "the point of a logical consequence is to prevent future violations rather than to inflict pain or sadness" but every one of us imposes logical consequences.

We can impose boundaries with abusive adults, and the ways our kids treat us would sometimes be called abusive if done by anyone else. We can and should protect ourselves from that, while still realizing our role in protecting, loving, and nurturing our child and meeting their needs.