Kids: Why both bribes and threats create less-moral children.

A provocative interview with Alfie Kohn, author of Unconditional Parenting.  The best book on parenting I've read thus far.  The book contradicts much of the conventional parenting wisdom that suggests the use of "time-outs," "consequences," and other punishments on the one hand; and gold-stars, bribes, and other kinds of rewards on the other.  Even Christian parents who believe in "unconditional love" still fall prey to these commonly-prescribed techniques.

Sabotaging the very results we long for:
Most parents want their children to grow up to be moral, loving and responsible children.  However, the very techniques many of us have adopted are not only ineffective, but produce the very kinds of negative results in the long-term that we hope to avoid.  These traditional techniques that Kohn exposes can actually yield less-loving, more-selfish children over the long haul.

The myth of punishment: It is not the same as "natural consequences."

Many parents and teachers wrongly assume that the use of punishment is the same thing as experiencing "consequences,"  particularly "natural consequences."  Adults justify the use of punishment [whether gentle or aggressive] by reminding the child that they are ostencibly "making choices" and that bad choices have repercussions or "consequences."  But adults cunningly call those repercussions "natural consequences," as if they are universal and happen to everyone everywhere.  So according to that justification, whatever happens to the child is the result of a choice they've made, not a situation the adult has set up.

While bad choices do have repercussions, I assure you that to a child, punishment is experienced very differently than natural  consequences.  Here's how punishment is distinctly different from natural consequences.

PUNISHMENT:

Punishment uses coercion, threat and pressure: 

"If you don't do what I'm asking, you will go to your room for a time-out." 

"If you don't do well on your report card, you won't be able to go to the dance." 

The "consequence" that an adult sets up for the child is designed to compel the child into one right response - the one the adult would choose.  The child must comply, or experience some kind of pain or loss.  [To be determined by the adult, of course.] Though the adult may in fact be right about what is needed in that situation, the use of punishment generates fear and anxiety rather than a healthy motivation to do the right thing. 

Moreover, the punishment is being set up and arranged for by the adult, rather than something that occurs as a natural outflow of an action, whether or not the adult arranged for it.  For example, if I go skating on a pond before it has frozen completely over, I may fall in and experience hypothermia; yet no one has arranged for that consequence for me.  It's simply a natural and understandable cause-and-effect. No one created the effect [falling in] in order to get me to be less foolish.

Ironically, the same parents who would agree that "perfect love casts out fear" would advocate the use of punishment [and its use of intimidation] to enforce proper behavior.

Punishment removes the possibility of a meaningful choice for the child. 
It is a fallacy to believe that the child is making a true, internally-motivated choice when the only two choices we have given her are either, "Do what I say" or "Experience fear and rejection." 

Punishment will also guarantee that the child's choice to comply with your wishes will not be motivated by love for you.  Nor will they obey because they genuinely respect you.  Rather, their motivation will be to avoid pain.  Using punishment actually disengages a child's genuine desire to do the right thing because fear will override any possibility that the choice will be made out of loving respect for you.

Punishment teaches the misuse of power.
Finally, punishment teaches the child that the way you get someone to do something is by using power against them.  It says to the child, "Authority is something to be feared rather than loved and honored."

NATURAL CONSEQUENCES:

Natural consequences, on the other hand, are not the fruit of threat and coercion, because no one is manipulating the child towards any particular outcome.  No one is using their authority or power to insure that their demands are met. 

In the case of a true natural consequence, the child retains a meaningful choice in the matter. No one is arranging for or demanding any particular outcome.  For example, if a teen chooses to drive recklessly down a neighborhood street, he could hit a toddler who steps out from behind a parked car.  The toddler may be tragically injured or killed as a natural consequence of the teen's actions; yet that natural consequence isn't being set up by an adult in order to constrain good choices behind the wheel.

Bottom line:  Justifying the use of punishment by calling it a "natural consequence" does not make it so.  The fruit of punishment is fear, not love. 

---

Helpful resources:

• Watch the video:  Relating Without Control, Jim Robbins
• Read the book:  Unconditional Parenting, Alfie Kohn

Lesson from The Horse Whisperer: You don't "break a horse."

The Horse Whisperer
"Buck," the  documentary, is about the man behind the legendary cowboy in "The Horse Whisperer."  His name is Buck Brannaman.

You don't 'break' a horse:

You don't break a horse.  You don't force them into compliance.  You don't enforce your will upon them by violating their will.  Neither do you do this to a person.  Another term for "breaking a person" is compliance:

Compliance breeds fear, and uses intimidation to its advantage: 
"Do this or we will threaten you with 'consequences' until you meet our expectations."




Compliance is impatient: 
"Do this now:  We're more interested in outcomes than in hearts."




Compliance violates the will of the other: 
"I have the right [and power] to bend you to my will.  What you want isn't important."

You don't break a child.

Neither do you "break" a child; and this doesn't always imply a physical domination over a child.  Yet common parenting techniques that enforce "consequences" and varieties of disciplinary punishment; as well as "classroom management" techniques that get kids to shut up and be quiet "break the child" to gain compliance over their will. 

I once observed a substitute teacher scream across a cafeteria at a young girl for dropping food on the floor.  The adult's voice shattered the din and the room went silent.  The young girl shook with fear.  Tears streamed down her cheeks for the next 10 minutes.  He broke her.

The children, our spouses, or whomever we jerk around with bit and bridle, are the mirror to our souls.

"In this particular discipline, you have to be a sensitive person.  That vulnerability makes you great."  - from Buck, the film

Why giving children [or anyone else] "consequences" doesn't work.

Mother to young son: 

"If you don't pick up your toys, you'll lose a privelege.  I warned you that there would be consequences."

Translate: 

"If you don't meet my expectations, pain will follow:  I will either remove something from you, or do something to you." 

Most of us were brought up under a compliance model:  "Just get kids to behave.  Give them 'consequences' if they don't meet your expectations."

Natural consequences:
Yes, there are natural outcomes to our choices:  Relationships don't do well where there isn't mutual respect, including from child to parent.  However, the carrot and stick [reward and punishment] model doesn't work.  [Note:  rewarding a child, in order to get good behavior, has also shown to short-change genuine transformation in the long-run.]  In fact, research indicates that if you insist on punishing [or rewarding] kids for their behavior, you'll end up with a worse kid in the long run.  Remember, true transformation is measured in years, not minutes.

Giving "warnings" and "consequences" didn't even work for God:

"If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins..."  [Leviticus 26:18]

"...as your sins deserve."  [Leviticus 26: 21]

"They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws..."  [Leviticus 26:43]

Did God's warnings that consequences would follow produce heart-change in his people?  No.  They still went ahead and did what he warned them not to. Why?  Pressure to comply - and the threat of consequences that accompany that - will never produce the actual change we really want for our kids.  Being intrinsically [self-motivated] to love well is far superior to being threatened into acting like you care about others.

So what's the alternative?
Connection.  Put the heart first.  Here's another post I wrote that gives you some concrete suggestions:  "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First."

Were you a "high-Reactive" introverted kid? [High-Reactives: Part-two]

Here's part two on "high-reactive" people, and the unique ways in which they suffer as well as can do well in the world.  Excerpts from Quiet:  The Power of Introverts In a World That Can't Stop Talking.

High-reactive kids and adults:
Although much of the research with "high-reactives"  has been done with kids, "the footprint of a high- or low-reactive temperament never disappeared in adulthood" when those same persons were tested in adulthood. 

In other words, you certainly have the free-will to change some parts of your personality, but certain aspects will follow you into old age.  According to the "rubber band theory" of personality, we can stretch our personalities to a degree, but they'll always snap back to a preferred default position.

More characteristics of a "high-reactive" temperament:

• These kids are more at risk when there's "marital tension, a parent's death, or abuse.  They're more likely than their peers to react to these events with depression, anxiety, and shyness." 


• But there's a beneficial side to having high-reactive kids - especially if they're parented well under a stable environment:  These kids will "tend to have fewer emotional problems and more social skills than their lower-reactive peers, studies show."  They can even be more resistant to the common cold when in a nurturing environment.


• These children [and presumably as they grow into adulthood] are often "exceedingly empathic, caring, and cooperative.  They are kind, conscientious, and easily disturbed by cruelty, injustice, and irresponsibility." 

According to Jay Belsky, "'Instead of seeing these kids as vulnerable to adversity, parents should see them as malleable - for worse, but also for better.'"  The ideal parent for a high-reactive child:

• "can read you cues and respect your individuality;"
• "is warm and firm in placing demands on you without being harsh or hostile;"
• "is not harsh, neglectful, or inconsistent."

Creating a new environment for high-reactives [and probably everyone else as well]

As I read this research, it was obvious to me that "high-reactives" in particular need a grace-filled environment  - absent of accusation and shame.   Certainly, though, everyone could benefit from gracious relationships; but particularly "high-reactives." 

Let's:

• Respond without reactivity.
• Refrain from controlling and accusing.
• Confront [when necessary] with information, not condemnation.
• Celebrate the new heart in the other before jumping in.

Related posts:

• "Why Accusation Is So Debilitating For Sensitive-Hearts"


• "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First."


• "How We Talk to Our Kids:  An Alternative to Constant Evaluation and Judgment Calls"

What about you?
What did you experience as a "high-reactive" kid?  How has it carried over into adulthood and what benefit has it brought you?

Parents: We are not Correction Officers

I hate to see children who are rigidly controlled like cattle, poked and prodded; or like lab rats, rewarded or punished based upon an adult's perception of successfully meeting expectations.  Control and compliance, the handmaids of shame,  assault my spirit to the core and this is an issue I am currently researching and writing about. 

I thought I was doing much better at stepping back from over-correcting my kids, refusing to control their every decision ...until I tried this little experiment:

Experiment:  Try not to correct your child for a day, or even one hour.  [Unless, of course, there's a safety issue involved.]  Try not to say, "no" or evaluate their behavior.  Don't pressure them to conform to your expectations.  Just connect with them. 

The experiment was all too revealing for me.  Though I think my parenting has changed for the better in the last few years, and I'm much more conscious of trying not to unnecessarily control my kids, the experiment showed me just how ingrained and reflexive my need to correct them was. 

It's also draining and takes an enormous amount of energy to control others -- energy that could be used to connect with them rather than getting them to comply with our often rigid expectations.

TRY IT: 

• Just one day.  Or even one hour. 
• No corrections, except for safety concerns:  Just connect with their hearts. 

Try it and let me know what you discover.

Related resources:

• "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First,"  Jim Robbins

It's about connecting, not control.

What if, rather than ask,

"How can I get this person to do what I want them to do," we asked,

"How can I connect with this person?"

Getting people [including our spouse or kids] to comply with our rigid expectations will inevitably lead to controlling them. 

Control always leads to shame. 
Why?

Because the one doing the controlling [expecting compliance] assumes it's their right to do so.  It sets the two parties on unequal footing.  The receiving person's dignity is seen as dispensable.

Are expectations a good thing?  Yes.  To live without them is to live without values and to assume our own dignity is indispensable. 

But demanding compliance at the cost of another person's heart isn't acceptable.  God himself is gracious with latitude:  He allows, even welcomes, self-will - the capacity to make uncoerced choices without the threat of disappointing him.

It's helpful to ask:  "Does the person's heart matter more to me than their behavior?"

The controlling dynamic centers around "IF...THEN..."

"If you do this, I'll be happy with you.  If you don't meet my expectations, I'll be disappointed with you."

"If you comply with my expectations, I will reward you.  If not, you'll suffer the consequences."

THIS IS NOT THE GOSPEL.  Instead, God says, "I will bless you on your worst day."

A better way

Jim Collins, author of "Good to Great" and other leadership books, offers an alternative:

1.  "Lead with questions, not answers."

2.  "Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion."

3.  "Conduct autopsies, without blame."

I would add a couple others:

• "Give feedback about failed expectations as information, not condemnation."  [remove the emotional sting]


• "Put the heart of the other person first.  Worry about behavior later."

It's about connecting, not compliance.

Parenting where the heart comes first

Here are some ways you can respond to your children out of your good and noble heart...even when your patience is being tested.  The suggestions come from a book called, Unconditional Parenting, by Alfie Kohn, a leader in the education and parenting fields:

 "Be reflective:"  Most of us find ourselves on auto pilot, simply reacting to our children, like firing at the metal parade of ducks at the carnival tent,  squeezing the trigger as each duck comes into our scope:   ping...ping... pang.  We simply fire away rather than first reflecting upon our response.  As Kohn says, "...control tends to be favored over connection."

"Keep your eye on the long-term goals:"  There is a great body of research out there that says that the carrot and stick [reward and punishment] pressure tactics of shaping kids actually backfires in the long run.  Pressuring kids through reward or punishment offers them external incentives only, like  grabbing a young plant by its leaves and pulling upwards forcefully in order to get it to grow, or telling the plant you'll water it only if it meets your expectations.  It doesn't help kids to want to be respectful or kind.  And we want them to want to walk nobly.

"Put the relationship first."  It's too easy for us to sacrifice the relationship for short-term compliance...just getting kids to be obedient little soldiers; or for our own need for peace and quiet.  Are kids really 'better seen and not heard?'

"Attribute to them the best possible motives consistent with the facts."  If little Tommy hauls off and wacks his brother's head with a stone, it's safe to say his motive probably wasn't noble.  But there are many times we assume our kids are just trying to tick us off, that their actions are intentionally rebellious.  When we do this, we often misread their hearts and attribute ill-will where there was none.

"Don't stick your no's in unnecessarily."  Try counting the number of times you tell your child 'no' in any given day.  When it's not a genuine safety issue, we must ask ourselves if we're shutting something down unnecessarily:  "We sometimes refuse to allow a child to do something just because it's inconvenient for us" says Kohn.

"Don't be rigid."   "A foolish consistency is the hallmark of ineffective parenting."  [partially attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson] There are often times when we parents can demonstrate compromise and humility, so that children experience a gracious authority that puts their heart first.

As Charles Spurgeon once said,  

“What position is nobler than that of a spiritual father who claims no authority and yet is universally esteemed, whose word is given only as tender advice, but is allowed to operate with the force of law? Consulting the wishes of others he finds that they are glad to defer to him. Lovingly firm and graciously gentle, he is the chief of all because he is the servant of all.”