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

What do you want for your kids? [Redefining "good morals"]

Some time ago, I asked a group of parents to list the qualities they wanted their children to possess as they grew older.  The initial responses were character traits such as:

"respectful"

"kind"

"responsible"

Only after those initial character qualities were suggested did some parents begin to offer other qualities they desired for their children like:

"problem solving"

"empathy"

"purpose"

Typical moral categories aren't enough.
Notice that the first list fell within very typical moral categories that represents what we think of as "good behavior."  Yet the qualities on the second list are also critical for development.  Traits like "empathetic awareness,"  "discernment" [needed for problem-solving] and "sense of purpose" are also needed for relational and emotional health, yet are not often the first things we think of when it comes to character development.

Children are often taught both in school and at home to be "kind" or "respectful" or good "team players"  [all potentially forms of compliance to get them to be more manageable]; while ignoring qualities like "play," "risk-taking," and "redemptive suffering."

Teaching our kids to be disruptive
Though we want our kids to "show respect towards authority," we would never think of teaching our children how to be redemptively-disruptive - standing against injustice when it is warranted - because Jesus' cleansing of the temple doesn't look like "self-control" to us.   Or that addressing injurious authority may sometimes be warranted because there are still "white-washed tombs" and "broods of vipers" using power and entitlement to lord it over those they should serve.

Redefining "morality" for our kids
How have you been taught to view "character" and "morality?"  Strictly in terms of good behavior?  What other traits would you consider listing that you hope to instill in your child?

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."

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

Learning how to handle power

God wants to share his power.  Aptly wielded, power brings transformation and healing to the world.  He has intended to share his power from the very beginning:

"Adam, you may name the great variety of animals on the earth." "Adam and Eve, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.".

"What!!...are you crazy, God!? Don't give them that invitation; they'll screw it up!" But God risks because he shares.

Children need a sense of power, which must include the capacity for choice. Of course, the limits on that power must be age-appropriate, but stripping a child of power will wound them: "I am your father and you will do exactly as I say!" Left with only one acceptable option, and the threat of punishment if they don't choose that one acceptable option, a child will be stripped of dignity -- because dignity involves the divinely-given capacity for choice.  Power requires choices. 

What our children need to hear is this:

"Not only do you have an option here, you may choose. Of course the consequences will also be yours, but I will never remove either your choices or their consequences. I love you too much."

As Danny Silk suggests in his book, Loving Your Kids On Purpose, when you strip a child of the ability to choose between option A or B, the only way to ensure they comply is through the threat of punishment. ...and that only leads to fear: "If I don't do what mommy or daddy wants, I will disappoint them... or worse."

"Perfect (whole, complete) love casts out fear." Love and fear don't co-exist well.

God is teaching us adults how to use his power, to exercise it well; and I've been afraid of that my whole life: "But, if I get to choose here, what if I blow it? What if I choose the wrong thing?  Will you be disappointed?  Will I be outside of your will?"  ...and fear wounds the relationship.  Further, I never learn how to handle power favorably; and the only way to really learn is to screw it up sometimes.  You don't learn until you really get the consequences.  But if you live in constant fear of blowing it, you don't learn how to handle power-- You only learn fear.

Our capacity for choice is a bit unnerving.  We're given a lot of latitude when it comes to chosing.  But that latitude is wholly necessary for learning to handle power...and therefore love.  Love bestows power.