When the Consequences You Give Kids Are…Well…Consequential
I don’t want my child always to be threatened into doing something. Sometimes I want her to want to do it herself.
My wife and I had an accidentally good discussion the other night. It was late, the kids (3 years and 9 months) were already in bed and we were just getting ready to turn in ourselves. We had briefly been talking about how we give (or sometimes don’t give) our 3 year old consequences and it felt like the discussion was done. But it wasn’t.
Background Info
The background to the conversation is that my wife and I have different styles when it comes to consequences. My method goes something like:
“You need to do [action] in [number of seconds] or this will happen [consequence]”
My wife on the other hand, leaves out the consequence and just starts counting down:
“Gertrude…
(not our daughter’s real name, but I think the name is funny, so we’ll keep it)
…you have to do [action] by the count of [random number from 3–10]!
5–4–3–2–1…”
My wife admitted that it was 50/50 these days whether Gertrude (ha ha…still funny) would actually do it, or just say “no”.
My view of it was pretty Star Trek Spock-ish. If you don’t give her a consequence she won’t know what’s coming and you won’t get compliance cuz all she has to do is wait you out. And little Gerty is learning that pretty fast with her 3 year old brain. Thus, consequences equal compliance. Well, most of the time. 🤔
Daddy Learns a Lesson
But back to the conversation my wife and I had, when I asked her (incredulously, arrogantly, however-ly you describe it) why she does it that way. Her answer surprised me a bit; not for what she said but for what lay underneath.
She said (paraphrasing):
“I don’t want her always to be threatened into doing something. Sometimes I want her to want to do it herself.”
Which, admittedly, is very simple in its loveliness, yet my blindness to how I was shaping Gertrude’s (yup, still funny) behaviour is pretty telling.
I might’ve been getting more consistent outcomes than the wife (nope, not gonna use her name either, maybe we’ll go the full 1909 and call her Bertha), but I wasn’t necessarily achieving the goal of making a better child.
As these conversations tend to go with us (cuz we’re basically Ward and June Cleaver) is that we met in the middle. After an hour or so of steady analysis we realised we both were using one method for two different situations. We call them Low and High Intensity situations.
Low Intensity
…is something like:
Daddy: “Gertrude, it’s time for dinner”
Gertrude: “No, I want to play”
Daddy: “Okay, you can play for 5 more minutes, then you come to the table, ok?” Notice the lack of consequence, cuz I’m learning how to make a better person ✌🏻
High Intensity
…moments look like last night when:
Mommy: “Gertrude get back here right now! You haven’t wiped your bu- , AAAH don’t sit in the bed until we’ve wiped you! You come here NOW! 5–4–3–2…you get the picture 😏
Daddy Sees the Light
The problem with me was that during these Low Intensity Moments I wasn’t giving Gertrude the opportunity to show me that she could be good, without me standing behind her with a paddle ready to swing (metaphorically speaking, of course).
And Bertha’s problem was that she wasn’t getting the compliance she wanted during the High Intensity Moments and it was just making her madder and madder as Gertrude ran around the house bare-assed laughing her head off not taking things seriously (also metaphorically speaking, sort of).
The Formula
So, in conclusion, for High Intensity Moments we now (try to, but you know…instinct 🤷🏼♂️) use my method of:
ACTION + CONSEQUENCE = CONFORMITY
And for Low Intensity Moments we use Bertha’s:
ACTION + TRUST = BETTER PERSON
In the end we’re all better people. Sha La La La 😇
