In Defense of (the Right) Punishments

Source: Julia M. Camero/Pexels

When I talk about punishments here, I do so in their definitional meaning, not what we’ve come to think of punishments: something an angry parent yells while red in the face, taking away their kid’s social life (or favorite stuffie) for a month. Technically, a punishment is a negative consequence that decreases the chance an undesirable behavior will happen again. What I’m defending are negative consequences.

Some more recent parenting recommendations and mommy blogs have been telling parents to drop consequences altogether. The rationale for this recommendation is that giving kids consequences breaks the parent-child connection. The problem with that argument is that decades of psychology research say it’s flat-out wrong.

Here’s what the decades of research in the area of behavioral parenting show about negative consequences: When kids misbehave and don’t respond to an instruction to stop or a warning about a consequence, and parents give a brief, negative consequence, kids tend to respond well. This is because a few important things happen in this situation:

Parents model emotional regulation. They don’t lose it. They know what to do, so they can stay in control. They don’t try something that isn’t working a bunch of times (tell kids to stop) and then get upset when it doesn’t work. They stay calm and in control. Kids respond to what they see. When parents are in control, kids are often able to get into control more quickly themselves.

Parents teach kids the rules. Kids tend to do well when they know the rules. Most kids want to follow the rules (at least most of the time).

It’s kids’ jobs to test the rules. That is part of developing independence, which happens throughout healthy development. If parents respond to these tests by letting kids know the limits, kids feel safe and secure. They feel secure because they can count on what will happen in response to their behavior. Feeling secure and safe makes kids feel connected to their parents.

There you go, you can have consequences and connection together (and I can attest to this from doing it daily in my personal life!).

Warn first, give a consequence only if necessary

Here’s another really important piece that gets lost or left out of parenting Instagram posts: There is not a single behavioral parenting article or book that encourages parents to go right to negative consequences without allowing the child a chance to course correct—unless it’s dangerous for the child (e.g., they could get badly hurt or hurt someone else).

The well-researched sequence encouraged across the board is: Give an instruction. Pause and give the child a chance to follow said instruction. Warn of a logical negative consequence for not following the instruction. Pause again for the child to follow the instruction. Deliver the logical negative consequence (if needed).

This whole sequence can take seconds. Kids learn quickly, and then everyone can move on. Many times, parents get to the threat stage but never execute the consequence.

In addition, research on the use of negative consequences often examines them in conjunction with other positive parenting strategies to enhance parent-child functioning and communication.

Source: Tima Miroshni/Pexels

When to cuddle and when to give a consequence

There are some situations in which children are highly upset about something, and the right parenting response is to spend several minutes talking about what’s going on, and maybe problem-solving or just soothing your child. When my toddler grabs his big sister’s crayon and won’t give it back, that is not that moment. In that moment, we just need to quickly correct the snatching and get back to drawing.

Parenting Essential Reads

The Hidden Benefits of Pre-K for Parents

When Your Child Starts Sounding Like Your Ex

Making every moment into something bigger than it needs to be is not connection. It’s risky. As a clinical psychologist, I am scared about the message that this sends to kids.

Think about it: When kids get lots of undivided attention from an adult each time they are upset, they learn that the more upset they get, the more attention they get. This is not teaching kids to regulate and soothe themselves. It’s teaching them that each time they get very upset, they get a lot of attention (something all kids want!). It’s teaching them that they’re not capable of getting themselves back in control and behaving well.

When kids learn to self-regulate in tough moments, they develop confidence and independence. They believe in their ability to handle tough moments. In contrast, if kids need parents to help them regulate, they stay dependent and insecure in their own ability to cope.

Soothing and validating are not the same thing

Let me take a minute to explain that soothing is not the same as validating. You can (and should!) validate a child’s emotion any time, even when they've snatched the crayon. It sounds like, “I can see you’re feeling upset that you don’t have a red crayon. We don’t snatch. Hand the crayon back to your sister and ask to take a turn, please.” If this doesn’t happen, that’s when warning about and implementing the negative consequence happens (if necessary).

Spending several minutes rubbing your child’s back and talking about their big feelings about not having the crayon they want, or hugging them and rocking them in response to not getting what they wanted, is soothing. This gives kids a lot of attention in response to, in this case, an undesirable behavior (snatching).

Parents need parenting successes so they don’t feel like failures

I’ve recently read and heard a lot of parents feeling stressed because they aren’t feeling successful without using consequences and having to be present and available to soothe their kids, especially after their child has done something that has upset them. Telling parents they shouldn’t give negative consequences for misbehavior sets parents up to fail.

Some of the most prominent parenting researchers of our time, Dr. Sheila Eyberg (PCIT), Dr. Matt Sanders (Triple P), and Carolyn Webster-Stratton (The Incredible Years), all have negative consequences built into their parent training programs. The vast amount of research that backs up PCIT, Triple P, and The Incredible Years (to cite a few) is staggering.

It all points to how calm, brief, and immediate negative consequences positively affect child behavior and subsequently positively affect parent-child interactions. Parents report feeling more confident and less stressed when they use the strategies from these programs. That’s the opposite of feeling like a failure.

What about using natural consequences only

Some parenting recommendations tell parents to only use natural consequences in response to misbehavior. Listen, I’m a big fan of natural consequences. They’re effective, and they teach kids about how the world works. But waiting for a natural consequence is not always an option. Say a child smashes his firetruck toy against the window repeatedly. In this example, the natural consequence would be that the window breaks from the smashing and the child gets badly cut by shards of glass. No, thank you. I’m not risking that.

Now, let’s say the parent takes away the firetruck for a while when the child is smashing it against the window. The child smashes his firetruck against the window again, and the parent takes it away for a while. And the child vrooms the firetruck along the floor and gets to keep playing with it. The child smashes the firetruck against the window again, and the parent takes it away again. The child learns which behaviors are OK. The parent keeps the child and the environment safe. It’s just a simple behavior-response paradigm that teaches children what they can and can’t do, which helps kids make sense of the world. This is why logical consequences work.

Consequences are not a replacement for teaching

The other important thing to recognize is that on their own, negative consequence are not enough. Parents need to teach their children what to do instead of the problem behavior. For example, when a child snatches a toy, it comes from wanting to play with what the other child has and not having the skills to get that need met. Explaining, “If you want to play with that, you need to ask to take a turn and wait for the other child to give you a turn. He may not give you a turn right away. You can play with something else while you’re waiting for your turn.” Now, the child knows what to do in that situation.

If parents just take the toy away every time their child snatches, the child may stop snatching, but they don’t necessarily learn the skills of taking turns and sharing. When parents pair negative consequences with what not to do with teaching kids what to do, we see a positive overall shift in kids’ behavior.

So, can I use consequences after all?

The blanket statements that are all over the internet and some parenting books that consequences are bad, bad, bad are just wrong. The sciences of social learning and behaviorism have shown for decades that negative consequences, done calmly and neutrally, are effective and helpful for kids. Consequences that are brief, clear, reasonable, and connected to the problem behavior help kids learn what to do and not do. When parents pair consequences with teaching, kids learn how to navigate their worlds, get their needs met, and get along with others. These are very good life skills for all kids.

Facebook/LinkedIn image: PeopleImages.com - Yuri A/Shutterstock