Conscience development in school-age children is encouraged by the verbal give-and-take between parents and children regarding behavioral limitations and rules. Parents who value their children’s thoughts but who encourage respect for authority and the requirements of various social settings have children who have a more highly-developed sense of right and wrong. (Hoghughi, 2004) Consequently, allowing the child to express his opinion about acceptable versus non-acceptable behavior is better for conscience development than is a more authoritarian approach
(“. . . because I said so!”).
Children of this age frequently test their parents’ patience by stalling (“I just have to do one more thing.”). This behavior will be reinforced if parents repeat requests multiple times before imposing consequences. If, on the other hand, parents make clear requests, give the child a few moments to comply, provide one warning that includes a reminder of the consequence for non-compliance, and then impose a negative consequence for non-compliance, children will be more likely to comply with requests in a timely manner.
When children misbehave, before imposing a consequence, the Prudent Parent asks herself, “Is there anything that I did or didn’t do that set the child up for failure in the particular situation?” If the answer is “yes,” then she should ask herself, “What should I do to avoid this in the future?” Parents must always seek to set their child up for success rather than failure. When action following misbehavior is based on accurate observations and information, it is more likely to be appropriate. And sometimes, the right action is no action at all.
The Prudent Parent understands that there will be times when, despite clear rules, despite the child’s developing conscience, and despite managing the environment to set the child up for success, the child will misbehave. When this happens, the best course of action is a natural or logical consequence (see posts from May 30 - 31, 2015). Natural consequences are those which occur naturally following misbehavior. For example, leaving a bicycle in the driveway may lead to the natural consequence of having the bike run over by a car and destroyed. But sometimes natural consequences are too severe, too far removed in time, or would be harmful to the child (such as the natural consequence of crossing a busy street without an adult), so logical consequences must be used. Logical consequences (such as taking away a child’s bike for a week if he repeatedly forgets to put it away in the garage when he’s finished using it) are more often seen as fair and just by the child. Because logical consequences are seen as reasonable, the child will be more likely to accept them without undue complaint.
Of course, as children are only human, they may find it easier to blame misbehavior on someone or something else rather than to accept responsibility for doing something wrong (“The dog ate my homework”). This is especially true with children whose self-esteem is not yet strong enough to allow them to accept that they made a mistake. Some children may feel that if they admit to making a mistake they will be judged to be a bad person. (Furman, 1987) In order to encourage the child to tell the truth, it is important for parents to focus on the behavior rather than on the child when explaining why a consequence is being imposed.
______________________________
References
Furman, E., (1987) Helping Young Children Grow. Madison: International Universities Press.
Hoghughi, M. and Long, N., (2004) Handbook of Parenting: Theory and Research for Practice. London: Sage Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment