I have 2 general ways of teaching my 21 month DD to listen to me. If she is doing something that is a safety hazard (running away at the store, going into the street, getting into the cleaning cabinet, etc.) or has no natural consequence (touching breakable items, jumping on furniture, etc.) I use my 'no-nonsense voice' to give her one warning, then I deal an immediate consequence if she persists. My second method is natural consequence, where I ask her not to do something and explain why... For example, she wanted to play with the bathtub faucet one night. I told her in my 'you shouldn't do that' voice 'No touching, that water is coooold!' (I used no-nonsense on the hot water side. Lol) she persisted in playing with it, and after one blast of ice-cold water, she never touched it again. I like doing this with her when there is no danger to her because I'm hoping it will put her in the mind set of 'I shouldn't _______ because _______ will happen' vs 'I shouldn't ________ because Mommy says so'.
So far, this has NEVER failed me. Sometimes she will try something twice, but after realizing that the same 'bad' thing happens she doesn't do it again. Until tonight. She was 'helping' me do dishes (she stands on a stool next to me, and either 'washes' the counter with her own rag or stirs the dish water with a spoon.) when she picked up a 'solids' measuring cup. She likes to drink out of them, because whenever I am making juices or anything like that I will let her taste what I made using one. So she grabbed the measuring cup, and decides that she wants to taste the dish water. Eeeew. So I tell her 'Don't drink that, it's yucky!' Of course, she had to try it any way. I figured that she would get a taste, and spit it out or at least stop drinking. NOPE! She liked it and wanted to keep drinking. I took the cup and switched to 'no-nonsense' Mommy, and she wound up sitting on her stool in time-out instead of helping with dishes because she tried again. :P
I kind of knee-jerk resorted to 'no-nonsense' Mommy when the natural consequence failed. I want her to learn to think for herself, but ultimately she needs to listen when I tell her not to do something. Now I am kind of questioning my approach though... It seems as though I have taught her that it's OK to do something after I tell her not to as long as I'm not being stern about it. I'm kind of torn... Part of me thinks that maybe I should switch to just giving her the warning instead of telling her not to do it AND the warning, so that she is ignoring advice instead of downright disobeying. The only problem I see with that is that when I am warning her against something, I DON'T want her doing it. So then when she ignores my 'advice' I would still have to resort to telling her no. Which kind of defeats the purpose of giving her the warning first. I don't know. I have kinda confused myself on this. Lol. What are your thoughts?
I guess my actual question is this; Should I keep doing what I have been and just handle the 'fails' as they happen, find a way to alter my approach to natural consequences, or just flat out tell her no on everything and wait until she is older to try again?
Thanks to the mommas who understood my question and had helpful advice!
Just to clarify a few things though...
1. My dd DEFINITELY doesn't have any more discipline problems than any other kid her age. I am always getting comments on how well-behaved she is, and she does listen when I give her a clear 'no'. I am not afraid to give her that clear no, nor am I afraid to discipline her in an appropriate manner when she disobeys. I am not one of those mothers who allows her child to do anything they want so they aren't 'stifled'... but I also hate having to constantly say no.
2. I am not expecting her to think things through at this age. I realize she is not capable of rationalizing her behavior, but she IS capable of learning from her mistakes, which is why I usually let her make them as long as its safe. My problem was that I was assuming she would always recognize the immediate 'consequence' as bad. (Cold water=bad... I expected that the soapy water would taste bad to her, and that would be a deterrent... But she just happened to like it.) I still think that allowing her to make mistakes like that is an important part of learning to connect action A to consequence B... I just need to be more discerning on which mistakes I allow her to make... I also need to make sure I warn her of the consequence without actually telling her not to do whatever, so that she isn't actually disobeying me. :)
3. I wasn't letting her drink dirty nasty dish water... I let her take a sip of it as I was loading the dishes into the fresh soapy water. She only got a tiny sip before I stopped her. I'm not about to let her do something that would actually make her sick just to prove a point to her.
Soap will make her sick, it can cause extreme gas and even diarrhea so no nonsense mom was needed in this instance. Sounds like you did a good job here.
Dr Sears is an expert in this and has excellent advice on discipline and communication tactics and by using different methods than just "no". Also, the older she gets, the more she is going to test her boundaries and want to experiment with her independence, including not listening to methods that have previously been working.
http://askdrsears.com/topics/discipline-behavior
Sounds like you're doing a great job! Natural consequences are a fabulous and research based strategy. As an outsider looking in, I might offer two suggestions.
1) If you are going to let the natural consequence happen, don't tell her not to do it... just warn her of the consequence. That way you don't have her testing the situation AFTER you have said no. For example : "Oh yuck. That won't taste good." or "If you keep playing with that faucet you're going to end up getting sprayed."
2) Only allow the natural consequence if you are actually OKAY with the consequence AND the immediate situation. The cold water tub thing is a good example because it was OKAY for her to get sprayed with cold water THIS TIME so that she doesn't do it in the future. If she ends up LIKING the water, you've got to be willing the let her have it at least for a second... then tell her it's time to get out. I tell my son if he doesn't take care of his toys, they will break and he won't have them. If that's my line, I have to be okay with him breaking them (otherwise it's not a consequence I can live with).
The problem with the sink water things was that you really WEREN'T okay with her drinking it. (the other problem is that the REAL natural consequence would probably be a terrible tummy ache an hour or so later... and she wouldn't connect that anyway even if you were OKAY with her being sick). In that case a logical consequence would have been better than the natural one. Just tell her not to do it, and then if she can't follow the rules, she can't work/play with you (that's logical and based on a natural social consequence).
HTH
T.
A stern voice and the word NO goes a long way when they are little, be consistent, not mean, they are smart, they get it.
Still trying to figure out what works for teenagers :(
p.s. kids don't take "advice" at ANY age as far as I can tell, you either listen to mom or learn the hard way!
IMO: You are SO over complicating this!
"I want her to learn to think for herself"....I am very confused by this statement! Do you really think that she will grow up and NOT think for herself?
I really have no idea on how to best advise you. Normally I would suggest that you are the Mother and you know your child best, go with what works for you and your daughter but that is what you are having problems with! I guess you should just calm down a little AND relax a little.
Normal consequences do work in *some* situations and it is *generally* pretty easy to gauge what those situations are and when it is the best time to bust out with this type of parenting...other times do not be afraid to just say No. It is OK (IMO) to bust out with the just plain 'NO'! 'NO, because I say so' shouldn't be something you are afraid of...your child needs to be able to just take No for an answer for no other reason then because My Mom says so!
I do not think you need to throw out everything you have been doing and start over. I just think you need to stop worrying about how your teaching methods are or are not going to effect her. If you love her with your whole heart and do your very best and tell her how much you love her and show her how much she means to you and be firm when you need to be, she will grow up just fine. (knock on some wood) Ha!
Dish water? Gross! I hope you didn't have raw meat wash in the water.
You continue to say no, you remove her from the situation and you distract her. She is 2. She won't be able to figure things out and make reasonable choices until she is older. So be her parent and keep her safe. Right now, don't leave it up to her.
yup...over complicating. what's wrong with not doing something because mom said so? there will be PLENTY of times in her life that that reason will be all she needs to hear.
sure on "easy" "safe" stuff, let her learn on her own. but she needs to know that when mommy says no, she means no. period.
the thing about "no" is, once you say it, that's it, it's over, fun time is done. period. if you allow wiggle room, then when it is important, she won't listen to "no". so make it mean something.
IF you choose to let her "experiment" and "learn for herself" (with SOME things that makes perfect sense!) then don't let "NO" enter into it. don't say "oh honey i wouldn't do that if i were you because..." just let her try it, if you have to say anything, let her know, "You can touch that honey but it is VERY cold!"
no should mean NO. period. keep it simple.
My philosophy has always been against the natural consequences in tiny tots and always teach "because I said so" so they learn to heed one warning "because you said so no matter what". It's quickest. I've never gotten the logic to explaining a billion things, or letting them mess up all the time to prove a point when they're that young. For example when I have all three with me at the grocery store- I need them to stop WHATEVER, RIGHT AWAY, no questions asked, and I do NOT owe them an explanation. This worked BRILLIANTLY with all three of mine. They are the most well behaved kids east of the Mississippi if I do say so myself. Friends I know who are always explaining why, need new reasoning for each new attempt at things, and kids try a billion things per day.
The beauty of this, is that when they get OLDER, and they have honed their impulse control and respect for your authority, you can explain away and it matters to them. For instance, my 4 and 5 year-olds can be told not to do something and why. They learn, and they already know it's not debatable, so the explanation is all that's needed. Their self-reasoning is outstanding, and they rarely need natural consequences for stuff. My 2 1/2 year old? Nope. One warning. No explanation. Consequence if she decides not to listen. But she's already getting that I say no for a good reason and can follow verbal directions most of the time since she has never demanded an explanation from me for things, now its like a special new treat, but she already knows I'm in charge.
Also I think natural consequences as discipline fall short often because if you REALLY DID them, like let your kids freeze without coats, or go to school in pajamas, and all the other things people recommend, to me that's sort of mean. And people don't really often follow through, because they don't want their kids to be humiliated and cold (I would hope). I find the old school way of handling it very effective, and everyone I know who had to do things because their parents "said so" when they were tiny kids is perfectly capable of deductive reasoning in adulthood. This book is great: "Back to Basics Discipline" by Janet Campbell Matson.
I love natural consequences for older kids. I try to use them where possible with my 9 yr old and 6 yr old. I also have a 2 yr old, and natural consequences don't work with him. He doesn't seem to learn from his past "mistakes". With him, I give him a stern warning and then remove him from the situation. Children 2 and under are too young to reason with, so I save the long-winded explanations and just use short, simple phrases "No! That's yucky" and I pick him up redirect him. Actions speak louder than words at this age. As your child gets older, you can start using more natural consequences.
I think that you warn her (either by telling her why not or just saying don't) and then you put her in time out when it's appropriate. Kids do stupid things and keep doing stupid things sometimes, either out of the stupidity of youth or defiance. It is our job to rein them in. If it really isn't a lesson she should learn by "natural consequence" (like don't run into the street) skip that step. Think about when you should just step in and when she can learn this on her own. Don't feel guilty if one day you scream her name to stop her from running into the street and she starts to cry.
If you warn her and she does it anyway, go to time out. You can also make the consequence something like, "If you don't listen to Mommy and put that cup down, you're done helping" and end of the "help" when she does it. My DD still loves to help bake and a few times of "you need to wait or you can't help" she does a lot better waiting for the parts she can help with.
Parenting is a lot of gray. You just try to pick black and white when you need to.
There's also "thinking for self" when appropriate (DD, do you want to go outside and play or go to the library? or DD, do you think that was very nice? Why not?) and thinking for her because kids who raise themselves are not raised well. Remember, she's 2. Did you make all the right choices at 2, or 12 or even 20? You have wisdom. Let her use that to avoid some mistakes.
I agree with what you are doing so far. You are there to make sure that what she is doing is ok. The stern voice is telling her danger. That is a good thing. The only thing that i would change.... she should only drink out of a cup. We measure all kinds of things in measuring cups, not for drinking. You dont want her to think that she can drink out of just anything.
How about adding a generous portion of vinegar to your wash water (great for removing tea/hard water stains) and then letting her "help" again. It would probably work unless she likes the taste of vinegar.
As for your last question, it depends somewhat on you and your child. I had one for whom advice and natural consequences worked beautifully even when he was young. And then there's my daughter, who seemed to approach every "you shouldn't do X because then Y" as a potential science experiment. She just had to test to make sure that the results were really what I said they were going to be. (This is still true, and I fear for her teen years. It's hard to raise an experiential learner.) To keep her alive and somewhat civilized, I did need to resort to absolutes when she was a toddler. Otherwise I'd have had the child who eats food off the floor and french-kisses the dog.
' I want her to learn to think for herself, but ultimately she needs to listen when I tell her not to do something.' -Those are not goals that always fit together and you need to decide which of those is more important to you (and her in the long run).
If you want her to learn to think for herself, then you need to accept that she will sometimes make poor choices. After all, she is 21 months old. So if this is how you want to proceed (and I do positive parenting), then you need to set her up for success and physically keep on top of things. So, if you don't want her to drink the dish water, then don't leave it where it can be drunk. She lacks impulse control at this age so if you leave something potentially tasty around, she will taste it. Even if she remembers what happened last time.
When something involves danger, then you need to avoid the situation so she is not in danger and when she is old enough to reliably understand teach her 'why'. Unless you are currently willing to let her burn herself to learn 'hot', she is too young for all 'natural' consequences.
I try very hard to avoid 'no' as much as possible. When you say no all the time, it becomes meaningless (so does the stern voice). Say yes and distract her with something she can do. Instead of 'no, don't use the measuring cup to drink dishwater' you say 'look the measuring cup is good for scooping clean water' - and then give her some to scoop.
I also tried to follow through on the things that were important to me (safety and a very limited number of other things - spitting (personally can't handle it), hitting, destroying property). That meant that rather than telling DS - no, dirty feet don't go on the couch' and waiting to see what happened, I would say - feet go on the floor, while heading over to physically place those feet on the floor if that was not where they were by the time I got there. So - nothing punitive, no repeating myself over and over - but MAKING the desired action happen.
I have never done time outs, nor ever seen the need for them. Although they appear to be a very in vogue method of punishment, there is no requirement that you use them.
I do similar to you...although I like to choose in my own way what I feel is a consequence I am willing to slide on. The dish water would have been a more stern no in my house.
I do things like if they won't put there shoes on and it's cold out I let them go outside without them on and typically they will come running in begging to put them on...
To me the dishwater is unsafe so I would have been more strict...I think you are doing just fine just remember that even if it doesn't caues blood or death it does mean it isn't worth a heafty warning.
I am a huge fan of Jim Fay's Love and Logic and he is a big fan of natural consequences too. I think what you did worked perfectly and always trying to approach a situation by thinking of the natural consequence attached to it is a solid approach to discipline. I am guessing since she is still under the age of 2, she can't yet rationalize all the reasons why she should NOT drink dirty dish water, so what worked better in this case was using your "no nonsense" voice instead and putting her in timeout. I think you handled it perfectly. It's best when kids can learn for themselves why they should not do something, however, we as parents have to step in sometimes and just stop them.Even if our only response to them is "because I said so." We are older and wiser and have our children's best interests at heart. Personally, I think it helps kids develop trust when using both of the methods you described above in tandem. It is ok for kids to stop just for the sake of "mom/dad told me to" until they can realize on their own that dirty dishwater has germs, the soap is full of chemicals, etc. or whatever the case may be.
I wouldn't change a thing that you did. A big piece of kids' learning is having someone set reasonable limits and being consistent with them. I think you did great!
HTH,
A.
I recommend the book 1-2-3 Magic.
Also, she is too young to "think for herself". Developmentally she is in the curiosity and explore stage. She thinks very concretely and does not think abstractly like a much older child or adult. She does not yet have the capacity to conceive ideas such as the water is dirty or soap can make you sick. You are the parent and for a few more years it will be your job to simply set limits with consequences.
Please try and get some information on child development so that you can better understand the stages your daughter will go through such as the difference between abstract and concrete thinking. This will help you to know better what to expect from your daughter at any given time.
