logical consequences for young children are punitive

[sweetpeas]

I think the key is, how we're seeing things in our own head. And I think perhaps the most important thing, for those who DO use the word consequences in a very gentle, non-punative way, is to realize that others, new to GCM, or people in our "real life", may not assign that positive spin when they hear/read the word consequences. I know people who very much use the word consequences to mean punishments.

To me, and I think it's Turansky & Miller who define it this way, "logical consequences" are a way to approximate natural consequences when natural consequences are too dangerous to let happen. So, instead of letting the toddler wander into the street and experience the natural consequence of being hit by a car, we set the logical consequence of, stay on the grass or we'll have to go back in the house. Or, hold my hand, or I'll have to carry you.

But I have IRL friends who will "threaten" their child. . . be good or there will be a consequence when we get home. Or whose "consequences" are things like time out and losing screentime (for unrelated offenses), etc. So for them, consequence is just another name for punishment.

[ReadingMommy]

When I made my post asking about logical consequences, I figured the "logical" would modify the word enough to give people the sense of what I was asking. But if it doesn't...what is a better word to use?

[CelticJourney]

Let's look at this a different way.

Let's say that actions have consequences and there are lessons to be learned from those consequences.

I think the differentiation Crystal is making is WHO is learning and modifying their actions.

If I have a toddler that has a toy they can't seem to touch without using it as a weapon, then I have learned a situation that my baby can't handle and therefore I modify my behavior by not allowing that toy until the baby grows some more. This sets him/her up for success by eliminating a factor that causes harm but which they can't understand and hopefully they have some safe 'non-weapony' toys to play with in the mean time.

If I were to believe 'I took your toy, now you'll learn a lesson about hitting' then I have put a burden of logic and cognition on a toddler that is unreasonable and damaging to our relationship. If I were to give back the toy a week later with a 'there, I hope you learned your lesson' but failed to learn the lesson myself of my child's cognitive limits, then I definitely have not set them up for success in the immediate future.

We moms have the opportunity to learn more about our kids and what makes them unique with each discipline/teaching encounter. Sometimes what we learn changes the boundaries we have in our homes and as they get older, sometimes they learn the boundaries that exist.

But for little ones, the burden is on the parents because they are the ones who CAN learn and process logic.

[rjy9343]

I think that we use logical consequences all the time and they are not punishments. I use them on a daily basis. When Ivy does not want to pick up her mess, that is fine. But she is not getting screen time since that is for when chores are done. She does not want to get in the van, so I put her in the van. She wants to do art, but has shown me she can't be trusted not to draw on the walls or put glue on the furniture. She only gets to do art if I can be there to supervise.
To me it is punitive when I make her sell toys to pay for a mean babysitter to keep her while I go to the store without her since she keeps misbehaving. Or if she looses art for a month and then she gets it back. Or she gets put in the van and looses her favorite toy for the day.
About four years ago, my niece ran away from my husband at the mall, he brought her back home and told her in no uncertain terms that he would not put up with her running from him like that again. If she tried it, she would not go back to the mall the rest of this visit. She did not understand why it was such a big deal so I took her to that mall and made her walk around the entire mall. This mall is HUGE, the website describes it in acres and it is divided into eight sections. It took over an hour to walk it. After the walk, I took her to one of the food courts for a snack and let her play in the play area. I also let her look at things she found interesting.
After we left she got the point, looking back that might have been over the top, but the intent was not to punish or hurt her. It was to show her why running from us was such a big deal. How it hard it could be to find her and how easy it would be to get lost. I can see how this could be considered a punishment or could be used to punish. Which is why I think so much comes down to intent. The intent was to keep her safe and for her to understand the danger.
When my nephew was two, he decided that he would not hold my hand in the parking lots. I picked him up as a large truck was backing out of a parking space. I showed him the truck and explained to him that the driver could not see him, so he needed a big person to hold his hand to keep him safe. As long as a big person held his hand, then the driver would not hit him. It made sense to him (and made me wonder if you really could reason with a toddler) so that was that. But if he did not accept that, then he would have been in a stroller or carried so that he did not get hurt. Again, not to show him who is boss, but to keep him safe.

[CelticJourney]

Intent can't overcome the inability of a child to process information nor cause them to control childish impulses. Sometimes parents must do the learning and modify the environment to keep a child safe.

[rjy9343]

Then where is the line? Some things are pretty straight forward like time out or spanking. But for things like no art unless I can be there to supervise or walking a large area to see the problem with running from me, those seem a like it has to be intent. In both of those the idea is to teach or prevent something from happening. If my niece decided to run away from me while we were walking, then I would have concluded she could not handle something that big and go somewhere else. If Ivy still tried to color the wall, she would probably only color outdoors where she could not hurt things.
Both of those things could be a punishment, but are not intended to do more than teach safety or protect my walls.

[CelticJourney]

The line lays with the child to some degree, imo. I think 'no art unless under supervision' is setting up for a pleasant art experience with no unhappy after effects.

With the walking, I think it might depend on the child what was learned. Maybe she is advanced and could comprehend that level of spacial awareness and logically acknowledge the limitation of her caregiver to be everywhere and know everything. Or she learned that if she didn't stay with you, she would have to walk until she was really tired again and so to avoid that level of discomfort learned to modify her behavior to avoid a negative.

For parents it's a learning experience as well. 'Can they understand the message I am sending them?' 'Are the emotionally and mentally able to comply?' "What can I change to set them up to learn in a positive way rather than from negative consequences?' Those answers are going to depend on the child.

[Aerynne]

I agree that a toddler isn't going to learn not to hit if you take the toy away but you are setting him up for success. But I do think a 3yo can learn that if you use the toy to hit you will lose it. It's not a situation where you're trying to make him sad so he will learn. I think that's where punishment comes in- punishment is an attempt to make the child sad so they will learn (in many cases something that they aren't capable of learning until they are older). Logical consequences are an attempt to alter the environment to help the child succeed. If the 3yo learns not to hit, then he can keep the toy. If he doesn't, the toy stays away. In either case he isn't hitting anymore, which is the point, and you are not trying to make him sad- just trying to keep him from hitting. That is a logical consequence, and it isn't punitive. It's not punitive for the 1yo and it's not punitive for the 3yo. The 3yo might learn not to hit, the 1yo won't (yet) but in either case it prevents further injury by that means.

We have a kitchen cabinet door that the kids like to swing on. It has caused some damage to the cabinet and dh and I were sure there would be more damage to come. So I suggested to him removing the door and he liked that idea and did it. It turned out that dd2 (5) was sad that the door was gone. The point wasn't to make her sad- it was to prevent damage to the cabinet. But the door stays off. We have told her and her little brother not to swing on it. They didn't stop, so we prevent them from damaging the door.

The problem with saying "XYZ is punitive" is then here it feels like such a discussion-stopper. This is the first discussion I've ever seen here (and please keep in mind that although I've been here a lot, I obviously haven't seen everything so someone else may know of one or fifty discussions that I am not aware of and am not remembering) where someone said "This is punitive" and others came back and said "Wait a minute, it doesn't have to be".

I think whether something is punitive depends A LOT on how it is phrased. It's not like you can use any kind of talking to make spanking non-punitive, but things like taking a toy away that is used incorrectly can be very punitive or not depending on how you talk to the child about it.

[rjy9343]

She was able to understand the limits and dangers. She has spent her entire life in small towns and had never been outside of them. If she had gotten tired, I would have called it good enough but she enjoyed it. She liked seeing everything and because she was able to stop and look at things she really liked, she learned that if she asks she will get a chance to see things that are interesting to her.
I think part of the reason she ran so much was she was used to being told no when she wanted to go see something, so she begs for forgiveness instead of permission.

[Beth1231]

I agree,it does seem to more of an individual thing. When I had just A,I dilligently studied where she was developmentally and tried to keep all those little things in mind when teaching,correcting,redirecting her.
But lo and behold,little brother came along and I realized quickly he is a very different little person and if I did the exact same things in the same way I did with A,he would be hurt and not understand things in the same way she did.

The way to discipline him,the way to connect with his heart,the way to communicate period....all the lines were moved a bit and I had to relearn.
And maybe that's a good thing. The differences between my three forces me to keep my eyes on them,my ears open. Pausing,reflecting and changing things where needed.
Being attuned to their differences helps me make those in the moment decisions about who needs me to take the toy of sight and who needs another toy put in their hands for redirection.

[rjy9343]

I think part of the intent is looking at your child and seeing where he or she is afa development and understanding. My girl is determined and needs me to be a lot firmer so that she can stay in piece. But she is also very bright and can grasp things fairly easily. She is also four and has a four year old's impulse control and does things that do not line up with her intellect but do her age. So before I can do something about her behavior, I do have to look at the why before I do decide on the what.
My nephew is very bright, but he is far more sensitive and high strung than Ivy. So even though there is logic with both kids it looks so different because you have two different people.

[Chaos Coordinator]

I think for us in our family our primary motive has to be to teach (discipline) and not to basically get paybacks (punish).

Sometimes that means my 6yo will learn that being mean to me repeatedly, like name calling and a rude tone, despite my reminders and scripting, will result in me not wanting to play with him, do favors for him like get him water, etc. at some point you have to hold a child responsible for their own behavior - he is choosing to be rude to me despite my lengthy attempts to help him and guide him, so the consequence is that I'm done and need to take a break from these interactions.


If my 3yo won't stop growling at a toddler in the church nursery despite being redirected, sent to potty, attempts at engaging in a different game, scripted for what to say if he wants interaction, and so forth, at some point I have to come to the conclusion that he's being willfully disobedient and intentionally, actively ignoring me. Then I have to make him sit down by me until he thinks he is ready to try again and be successful. And sometimes he wants to be ready but he's not ready, so I require him to sit down until *I* think he is ready.


I'm not trying to hurt him, shame him, punish him, get back at him for misbehavior, etc but yeah it absolutely is a consequence. If you by all means cannOT play nicely then you don't get to play. You can try again after taking a break for a few minutes.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

HOWEVER I do agree that seeking out a logical consequence believing that a pre logic child will *understand* it and then change their behavior based on it can be far reaching and especially in the young child it absolutely can be unnecessary and therefore punitive.


I guess my bigger question, because I find I ask it constantly with my own children, is at what point can I expect to be able to hold them accountable for their own choices? Like my 3yo relentlessly growling at a 2yo making her cry. I mean he was literally fighting me to get to her, completely ignoring my instruction. I felt stuck between a rock and a hard place and I certianly do not think what he was doing was okay. I don't find it to be punitive to, after extensive use of other methods, ask him to just sit down for a few minutes away from the little girl so that everyone could calm down.



I have felt this little inkling of a feeling lately that somehow *telling* my children what the consequences were made those consequences *seem* mean spirited. But I can't put my finger on why. Why is it okay for me to just remove the play swords when they aren't looking, but if they *know* I'm removing the play swords and I *say* "I'm doing this because you guys whack eachother in the heads with them" it's mean? Is it Bc its shaming maybe? I don't know. I need to know so that I can figure out how to navigate around the negative energy of it, kwim?

[ArmsOfLove]

HOWEVER I do agree that seeking out a logical consequence believing that a pre logic child will *understand* it and then change their behavior based on it can be far reaching and especially in the young child it absolutely can be unnecessary and therefore punitive.

This exactly.

And everything Elizabeth said.

I also appreciated JNe Nelson's distinction of Solutions over consequences. Solutions are responses that are relevent, related, respectful and helpful for preventing it the next time.


I don't take the swung stick away from the toddler because I believe the pre logic child will understand and internalize the logic of my choice and therefore become trustworthy with a stick in the future. I take it away because it is being used incorrectly and I need to help them be successful at not hurting people or breaking things. Taking it away today doesn't meN they should know what to do with it tomorrow. It means they don't get it back until they have matured and are able to use it appropriately.

This is a pretty foundational gentle discipline concept. Proactive vs reactive, age expected, developmentally sensitive, etc. there is lots out there written about this. Good stuff.

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Home on computer now

I guess my bigger question, because I find I ask it constantly with my own children, is at what point can I expect to be able to hold them accountable for their own choices?

This is a great question - and one that I find becomes even more important when there are any developmental delays or special needs in play. My answer is this . .. When they have shown they understand and are doing it without a reminder on a pretty consistent basis.

developmental readiness and maturity combine with lessons taught until the child understands and produce appropriate behavior. Prior to the combination of these things, we fill in the gaps - wherever they are. If it's in the area of developmental readiness then we adjust what we're teaching and what we expect. If it's in the area of maturity or self control then we create dynamics where they can be successful - whether reminders, or posted rules, or rituals and/or habits. If it's in the area of not knowing proper behavior, we teach it and model it and show them and build it into life, etc. We keep teaching until we don't need to anymore.

This isn't about creating routines, or implementing family mottos and lists of how we treat each other. Those are all great! And, yeah, take the stick away so the kid can't hurt someone. What you call it or why are all irrelevant. BUT the things that are purely common sense don't need brainstorming - once you shift into "help me find a way to logically drive this lesson home" and the child is pre-logic, you've shifted into a punitive mindset and since so many are trying to learn to *change* that ingrained model, I thought it was worth talking about this

[ReadingMommy]

TBH, I don't know *exactly* what my "pre-logic" 7-yr-old is able to comprehend. I have seen evidence that he is a strong thinker and can process things out to some level. He understands "If-then" fairly well. He can understand not to run out into the street because he can be hit by a car. He is currently very interested in healthy eating and exercise because he understands that doing so will benefit his body. So I'm not ready to say that he doesn't understand and can't logically process boundaries at all. Even if 10 is a general guideline, I think it's safe to say that there is a little variance between children. We have to look at our own child for clues to what they're "getting" not some arbitrary age guideline.

OTOH...whether he fully "gets" it or not, would the "consequence" change? If the answer is no, then I think this becomes a discussion of semantics. If the answer is yes, then we can consider whether the consequence is actually effective with our particular child. If it's not, I think that will be apparent.

Regardless of understanding, I still offer a short explanation for why a certain "consequence" is occurring. "Hitting hurts." "That is dangerous". The child will "get" what they get. I'm developing a habit of teaching the reasoning for things just as much for the future as I am for the present. So whatever they "pick up on", great! Whatever they don't, that will come in time. Maybe one day I will say something and it will finally click! God knows when that will happen, so I'll just offer my best child-friendly explanations in the meantime. My 4yo parrots a lot of what I say back to me. Maybe she can't logically reason it out in her own mind, but she accepts it at face value and takes joy in repeating it to me, and I think that's great! Her parroting is a way to connect with me, if nothing else. She will already know *what* Mommy thinks, and someday she will understand the why better.

Again, if a consequence or "If-then" will be the same no matter what their level of understanding is, I don't understand labeling it punitive just because they supposedly don't logically understand according to some arbitrary guideline. It's still the appropriate consequence either way. I *do* appreciate the reminder to be careful how I present any consequence, and try to avoid punitive undertones.

[ArmsOfLove]

I have felt this little inkling of a feeling lately that somehow *telling* my children what the consequences were made those consequences *seem* mean spirited. But I can't put my finger on why. Why is it okay for me to just remove the play swords when they aren't looking, but if they *know* I'm removing the play swords and I *say* "I'm doing this because you guys whack eachother in the heads with them" it's mean? Is it Bc its shaming maybe? I don't know. I need to know so that I can figure out how to navigate around the negative energy of it, kwim?

I find if I'm giving them advance warning of what I'll do I'm in a punitive mindset - this happens a lot with video games I hate taking them way so I struggling with being proactive. We're working on it

So what I would try to do is sit them down and say, "Hey, so tired of you guys hurting each other. You're having a rough time and since you're using these swords, they're going to go away until I know you won't hurt each other with them. What you're going to do is work on . . . (whatever - focus on helping each other, work on using kind words and gentle hands, redirect your energy to . . . ) And we'll see how quickly you can fix this. If you're ready you'll be able to do it and if not we'll need to just let you get a bit older so you can be ready. What are some things you can do instead of playing with swords? . . . " You get the idea

You get to frame it for them