Re: Tips on handling situations?

"toypup" (toypup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
"Catherine Woodgold" <an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e3cvvl$3f7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"toypup" (toypup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
Hmmm. But if when a child has a tantrum, they don't get balloons or any
other treats and that is always enforced, that is a rule they can count
on.
It is not arbitrary at all. It *is* a pattern.

Yes, it is a pattern, and the child will almost certainly notice
the pattern. This will likely lead to worse behaviour for
several reasons.

No. It will lead to better behavior, because the rule is no treats when
tantruming. It is a hard and fast rule that I stick to. The child
understands that rule. It gives him security that there are boundaries and
expected consequences of certain behaviors.

I hope you don't mind if I carry on this discussion,
thinking not of your family in particular but of
the general case of any family who applies the rule
you mention. The way you've stated it with "because", it
sounds as if in any family who applies
that rule, it will lead to better behaviour. I disagree
with that statement in general (though I'm not
making claims in this post about your family in particular).

There are several reasons why it would lead to worse behaviour,
and I think just two reasons why it would lead to better
behaviour. Depending on the particular family, the situations,
the way the consequence is presented
and the temperaments of the people involved, each of these
reasons might be a strong force or a weak force.
So in some families, perhaps it leads to better behaviour
on average while in other families perhaps it leads to
worse behaviour on average.

It would be hard to tell which. The same punishment can lead
to some better behaviour and some worse behaviour.
The better behaviour tends to be closely related to the
punishment, so the parent sees it and concludes that it
was because of the punishment. The worse behaviour often tends
to come at times and in ways that don't seem related
to the punishment, so the parent may see the worse
behaviour but believe that it has nothing to do with
an earlier punishment.

Reasons why a rule of "no treats while tantrumming" could
lead to worse behaviour:

1. The training instinct: the child might punish the parent
for not giving treats. (Punishment may come much later
and not seem to the parent to be related.)

2. The defiance instinct: People instinctively resist
being manipulated with rewards and punishments, especially
punishments. The child may realize that the withholding of
treats is an attempt to force the child to behave differently,
and the child may resist this by steadfastly continuing
the undesired behaviour, sometimes even when it's
inconvenient to the child to do so. (This behaviour
may sometimes come much later and not seem to be
caused by the punishment.)

3. The imitation instinct: The child notices that the
parent uses punishments (or purposeful withholding of
privileges) as a way of trying to influence the child's
behaviour. The child may imitate this by using punishments
or withholding of things or actions when the child wants
to influence someone, for example another child or the
parent. Since the child usually doesn't have the right
to withhold things that would have much effect, usually
when the child does this it counts as misbehaviour.
(This behaviour often comes much later and may
not seem related.)

4. Information: Applying the rule "no treats while
tantrumming" gives the child detailed information about which
behaviours of the child are considered "tantrumming"
(or "not behaving")
by the parent and which are not. This is often
closely equivalent to which behaviours of the child
are annoying to the parent and which are not. If the
child wants to annoy the parent for any reason in the
future, the child is able to use this information to
select annoying behaviours. (The child might want to
annoy the parent to punish the parent;
to get attention; or to stir up trouble when bored.)
(This behaviour often comes much later and may not
seem related.)

5. Self-image: The child might jump to the conclusion
"I'm bad." This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(This behaviour often comes much later and may not
seem related.)

6. Frustration: When the child begins tantrumming,
the child may immediately realize that there are not
going to be treats, feel frustrated, and the frustration
may lead to strong emotions the child has difficulty
handling and further tantrumming. (This behaviour
happens immediately. The parent may or may not
realize it's related to the punishment.)

7. Running out of consequences: Warwick Dyer warns
about this one. I have an article about him on
my parenting page
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
If the rule is "no treats while tantrumming,"
and "treats" covers a wide variety of privileges,
then once the child starts tantrumming,
there may be little left to take away, or
the things left to take away may be things
that cause other difficulties when taken away
(too far removed from the time of the
misbehaviour; too drastic, etc.)
Therefore, the child may feel little or
no incentive to exert some self-control to
have a smallish, mild tantrum rather than
a loud, severe tantrum involving hitting,
destroying property etc.
(This behaviour happens immediately and the
parent may or may not realize it's related
to the lack of the usual incentives.)

The use of punishment (or logical consequences) in
disciplining children is like the use of surgery
in health care: it may sometimes be necessary,
but can easily do more harm than good, especially
if it's applied when there were good alternatives
available, or if it's applied without careful
procedures, or if the incision is three times as
large as necessary. And because of the risks involved,
people tend to focus too much thought on it to
the exclusion of searching for or remembering
less drastic methods of accomplishing the same thing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rise of the violent children...
    ... another child who was hitting them with a stick, ... about the unreasonable use of corporal punishment. ... cause a child to think that unlawful violence is OK than confiscation ... Can you not see that the use of corporal punishment is *not* the same ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Rise of the violent children...
    ... often seems to correspond to whether violence is prevalent in their ... common sight whether the child is involved in the violence or not. ... It has everything to do with corporal punishment, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Rise of the violent children...
    ... another child who was hitting them with a stick, ... about the unreasonable use of corporal punishment. ... cause a child to think that unlawful violence is OK than confiscation ... you are making your job as parent or teacher unnecessarily more ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: CPS takes 10 year old to court for racisim
    ... my formal training in traditional and time-tested child psychology and ... It is where punishment is used ... babies learn they are seperate from mum when the source of food ... Adults spoil the purity of the child, it picks up on the adults ...
    (uk.legal)