What is natural consequences?

[Ldavis24]

Hi Mamas,
I am learning more and more about GD each day and DH and I are on board but the term natural consequences is not one I have heard before. Soooo what does it mean?

[AFWife]

My understanding is the phrase is self-explanatory.

Examples:
-If you pour your snack on the floor you don't have anymore snack and you have to clean it up.

- (this is one that everyone tries to avoid) If you smack the dog the dog will bite you.


Do I have this right?

[paxye]

Like so many things, It depends on the family... some people turn natural consequences into punishments that are related to the action, but in our family, natural consequences are as such:

Don't want to put your coat on, you might get cold.
You spilled water on the floor, we need to clean it up.
You screamed and woke the baby, help me comfort the baby.
You did something and your brother is no angry/sad/hurt, how about we find something to cheer him up, help him feel better etc...
You ran out in the parking lot, you need to hold my hand now.

I want my children to learn how to deal with situations as they come and I don't believe that punishment does that. So if something happens, we try to find the best solution at the moment. Often, it is the "natural consequence" of the action...

[JMJ]

In its most pure form, natural consequences are the inevitable result of an action. If you throw food, there is a mess. If you hit people, they are hurt and may not want to play with you. If Mommy has to spend extra time cleaning the house because you left a mess, she might not have as much time to do something fun later. One philosophy is to just let children experience these natural consequences and to be a model of your values so that your children will learn when they are ready what behaviors produce the desired results and freely choose to make good decisions.

In each of the examples, there is an appropriate action (or possibly several creative appropriate actions) that a child could do to make ammends for these actions. Some parents choose to have their children perform the appropriate reparation. In the examples, that would be things like cleaning up the thrown food, saying sorry for hitting, and helping Mommy out with some of her work. This is what most people I know would refer to as natural consequences.

A third thing that people refer to as natural consequences is a punishment related to the offense that goes beyond just making reparations. With the examples given, that would be something like cleaning up the whole house if you throw food, not being able to play on the playground for a week if you hit, and if Mom picks up your toys, you don't get them back.

[ProtoLawyer]

Natural consequence (it's the natural result of what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will get toothpaste all over yourself and be itchy. (Ask me how I know that one!)

Logical consequence (it may involve some intervening action from the adult, but it logically flows from what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will have to take a shower yourself, even though you don't want to, to get the toothpaste out of your hair; you also won't have time to go to the park because Dad and Stepmom have to somehow get the toothpaste out of the dog, who is 70 pounds and unwilling to get bathed. Another logical consequence may be that you don't get to play with the dog unless we're right there, or that the money to pay a groomer to fully take care of the toothpaste problem will come out of your allowance.

Imposed consequence (imposed by the adult, but not really related to what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will be grounded for a week.

[Llyra]

To me, natural consequences means that you, the parent, step out of the way, and allow the situation to unfold on its own, so that the child experiences what happens automatically as a result of his/her actions. In other words, I, the parent, don't punish, but I don't rescue the child from the results of his actions.

For example-- DS throws his bowl of cereal on the floor. It stays there, and he gets no more cereal, because there's no bowl to put it in.

DD2 drops her pony down the stairs. The pony breaks, and it stays broken.

DD1 dawdles when she's supposed to be getting ready for bed. Bedtime arrives, and there's no time left for a story.
(All of these have happened to us in the last day or so..)

I think that natural consequences are the most effective learning tools for children, as long as the consequences that result from their actions are within their capacity to handle. Like the natural consequence of running out in the road is getting hit by a bus, but clearly the parent cannot just stand back and allow that to happen. If a child refuses to have his diaper changed, the natural consequence of course would be to get a horrible diaper rash, but that's not a consequence most of us would be willing to allow. But when a consequence is not life-threatening, not unhealthy, and not irreparably damaging, you stand back and let the child experience the real-world results, and learn from them.

This can be hard, because we have an urge to protect our children from disappointment, from unhappiness, from hard work, from frustration, etc. It's so much easier to just pick up the bowl, or read the story anyway, or fix the pony, than to watch the child go through the anger and disappointment. But these kinds of "consequences" are such powerful learning opportunities.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by ProtoLawyer

Natural consequence (it's the natural result of what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will get toothpaste all over yourself and be itchy. (Ask me how I know that one!)

Logical consequence (it may involve some intervening action from the adult, but it logically flows from what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will have to take a shower yourself, even though you don't want to, to get the toothpaste out of your hair; you also won't have time to go to the park because Dad and Stepmom have to somehow get the toothpaste out of the dog, who is 70 pounds and unwilling to get bathed. Another logical consequence may be that you don't get to play with the dog unless we're right there, or that the money to pay a groomer to fully take care of the toothpaste problem will come out of your allowance.

Imposed consequence (imposed by the adult, but not really related to what happened): If you decide the dog needs a toothpaste bath, you will be grounded for a week.

Beautifully described!

I try to do natural consequences when they make sense, but I do logical consequences as well. I try really hard to avoid the imposed consequences.

[Ldavis24]

Thank you for all the great info it certainly clarifies things and imagine it even makes sense!
I always wonder how a little kid is supposed to learn from a time out if they do something, like I don't know drop their cereal bowl on the ground or even toothpaste the dog

Love the responses so thanks again!

[bscal]

The #1 natural consequence that we deal with just about every day in our household is choosing to wear inappropriate clothing for the weather. My older DD will be 7 in a few weeks and prefers to pick her own clothes out for school...

*yesterday was windy and drizzling all day long and she chose to wear a short sleeved summer dress, no tights and a thin sweater. (I do gently suggest appropriate clothing choices... but really it's up to her.) She told me she was a bit cold at school when she got home. We brainstormed and determined that next time maybe she should wear a warmer sweater and tights with that dress.

This is just one example. This happens often with her. I am trying to do all I can to encourage her to be independent and make decisions for herself. And she wants to pick out her own clothes and has an interesting sense of style! I also find that letting her wear whatever she has picked out and then discussing that choice later on works much better than telling her no, you should wear x instead of y.

Beth

[ssh]

We talk about natural consequences more often than we let them happen. We often talk about "If you do xyz then this could happen, that's why xyz is a bad idea." Our 4 year old DD is always telling us to be careful and that something is a bad idea. She really is thinking about possible consequences more.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by JMJ

If Mommy has to spend extra time cleaning the house because you left a mess, she might not have as much time to do something fun later.

There was BIG thread on that a while back, and how this is not a natural consequence at all, since cleaning is not a necessity and playing is. In other words, it's more important to leave the mess you kid made and take them to park and deal with the mess later. I'll see if I can find it. I think it started about how to get cleans to help pick up messes and sort of morphed into this type of thing.

ETA: Here's the link to the thread I was talking about. It was about manipulating and coercing children to do stuff, and this was on example. Just to give you a heads up.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...257&highlight=

[webjefita]

In its most pure form, natural consequences are the inevitable result of an action. If you throw food, there is a mess. If you hit people, they are hurt and may not want to play with you. If Mommy has to spend extra time cleaning the house because you left a mess, she might not have as much time to do something fun later. One philosophy is to just let children experience these natural consequences and to be a model of your values so that your children will learn when they are ready what behaviors produce the desired results and freely choose to make good decisions.

I pretty much agree with this.

I do think natural consequences are sometimes not so natural and more like punishments. Because natural consequences does not mean that I refuse to help you. Sometimes I will help if I am able and feel so inclined--example: if you throw your toys down the sewer drain, I am probably not going to get them out for you or replace them. I will empathize, and I will help you brainstorm, but if I've told you before not to do that, and you still want to see what happens, there you go.

If you throw your cereal on the floor, I will hand you a towel, and depending on your age/coping skills/my availability at the time, if you ask for help because it's too much to clean up, I will help. I will model for you that family is there to help, that we all make mistakes and don't need to be constantly shamed for them, and that cleaning up is enjoyable.

Biggest natural consequence in use around here is, "If you keep telling your brother that you're winning and he's losing, he's not going to want to keep playing that game." And this is said in semi private so as to be helpful and not threatening or to give the brother the idea to do just that. Just a thought. :-)

[mamaofthree]

natural consequences has always been a hard one for me... because it feels to me as a way to purposefully allow your child to fail or experience pain for a mistake, that we could prevent in some way.
here are a couple of examples (one from a friend)
1.) friends ds left his pokemon cards at the store (he was waiting outside with them in his card book) when he discovered that they were missing he asked her to go back to the store.. she said no. he left them now he had to learn that if you do not keep track of your stuff then you loose it.
2.) my dd felt one of her beloved HP dolls at the park. when she remembered it we went back to get it... i could have said you left it now suffer, but my thought was if i left one of my things at the park i would go back for them, even if i left it because i was careless, and even if i needed someone else to drive me there.
3.) dd kept leaving her american girl doll outside (she saved for a year to buy the silly thing) one part of me thought... she should learn to care for this thing, if it gets ruined then she will learn (a natural consequences, leave doll outside it rains doll is ruined) BUT because of her age and because we were busy often, i could see it being forgotten, so for quit a while i would check outside before bed and bring the doll in.
to me it seems that those natural consequences have a sort of "meanness" to them because we are expecting people with very little life experience to have the forethought to think... if i do A then B will happen. i think i would want some one to sort of "have my back". not let me screw up so bad that i ruin something (like with dd's doll). does that make since?

h

ps good old link. one thing that caught my eye was a post about what if you never have your child help out, never expect that of them and they are someone who never voluntarily helps out... do you send them out into the world not knowing how to do those things... the answer is YES! LOL that would be my dh when we got married. lol

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

There was BIG thread on that a while back, and how this is not a natural consequence at all, since cleaning is not a necessity and playing is. In other words, it's more important to leave the mess you kid made and take them to park and deal with the mess later. I'll see if I can find it. I think it started about how to get cleans to help pick up messes and sort of morphed into this type of thing.

ETA: Here's the link to the thread I was talking about. It was about manipulating and coercing children to do stuff, and this was on example. Just to give you a heads up.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...257&highlight=

Thanks for the link. Actually, this is something I've been really thinking about recently. I'll have to take some time to look at that one more closely. I've been reading "Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves" lately, and it's turning my world upside down.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Thanks for the link. Actually, this is something I've been really thinking about recently. I'll have to take some time to look at that one more closely. I've been reading "Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves" lately, and it's turning my world upside down.

The thread was really more about coercive and manipulative parenting, which, according to that thread, I totally engage in. And in our house not helping out to the point of mommy doing it all means that absolutely, if I get stuck doing EVERYTHING by myself, we won't be going anywhere! That, for us, IS a natural consequence.

However, according to a great many on the GD forums, that's not a natural consequence at all and is more of a bribe or an artful trick to getting your kid to do what you want. Meh. Works for us.

On the other hand, I don't do natural consequences like letting small children go out in the cold without jackets. When do you draw the line? How do you ENFORCE safety when some stuff is negotiable? Don't want to a wear a jacket in the snow? Ok honey. Don't want to wear shoes on the hot cement? Ok honey. But you HAVE TO WEAR A SEAT BELT. (And I'm sorry, not going out because my kid doesn't want to wear a seat belt is not an option.)

A lot of these theories I find are great, well, in theory, but have a lot of loop holes.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

On the other hand, I don't do natural consequences like letting small children go out in the cold without jackets. When do you draw the line?

Well, I have let my children go out in the cold (Minnesota cold) without a jacket. We were visiting relatives, and my kid was used to Oregon weather, where coats really are optional for quick trips outside. Dd refused a coat. She stepped outside, realized how cold it was and came back in for a coat.

I would not have let her go outside for more than a couple of minutes without a coat. But I knew that once she felt the cold, she'd want a coat. It was just easier to let her experience the cold than to argue with her about a coat. For the rest of the trip, she was great about coat, snow pants, hat and mittens.

In other situations, I've brought a coat.

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

How do you ENFORCE safety when some stuff is negotiable? Don't want to a wear a jacket in the snow? Ok honey. Don't want to wear shoes on the hot cement? Ok honey. But you HAVE TO WEAR A SEAT BELT. (And I'm sorry, not going out because my kid doesn't want to wear a seat belt is not an option.)

Well, this is the reason that I'm not into consentual living with my kids. There are some things for which the only solution that I'm willing to live with is doing it 'my' way -- mainly safety issues, but a few other things.

That's why I also use logical consequences. Logical consequences are what happens when I'm not willing to live with the natural consequences.

[justKate]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

Well, this is the reason that I'm not into consentual living with my kids. There are some things for which the only solution that I'm willing to live with is doing it 'my' way -- mainly safety issues, but a few other things.

That's why I also use logical consequences. Logical consequences are what happens when I'm not willing to live with the natural consequences.

Hmm. This is really an interesting thread to me because with a 9 month old, I'm struggling to see the difference between logical and natural consequences.

I'm trying to only "impose" consequences that my DD can anticipate, which I guess means I'm using "logical" consequences. This might be more of what the OP is dealing with, since her LO is a baby...

For example, if you drop your biscuit from the chair, I will pick it up for you. If you drop it a second time, I will help you pick it up. If you drop it a third time and shriek with glee because mama has to pick it up yet again, I will find some other way of giving you attention and you will not get the biscuit back.

If you rip mama's glasses off of her face, I will tell you to stop and put the glasses back on. If you try to do it again, you will sit next to mama instead of in her arms, because glasses are expensive and mama needs them and we cannot play with them.

AND THE BIG ONE: If you chew mama's nipple on purpose it will go away for a little while until you settle down/are gentle.

[Aliyahsmommy]

See my problem is that my 2 year old daughter refuses to wear a coat 99.9% of the time no matter how cold it is outside or how cold I know she must be(Ex:hands and face are red and cold and I myself am freezing!) I'm never sure whether to just let her not wear the coat even though the natural consequence does not seem to work or insist she wear the coat? By the way I do carry the coat around and offer it often, but it is always refused. Sorry to hijack for a moment OP!

Originally Posted by LynnS6

Well, I have let my children go out in the cold (Minnesota cold) without a jacket. We were visiting relatives, and my kid was used to Oregon weather, where coats really are optional for quick trips outside. Dd refused a coat. She stepped outside, realized how cold it was and came back in for a coat.

I would not have let her go outside for more than a couple of minutes without a coat. But I knew that once she felt the cold, she'd want a coat. It was just easier to let her experience the cold than to argue with her about a coat. For the rest of the trip, she was great about coat, snow pants, hat and mittens.

In other situations, I've brought a coat.



Well, this is the reason that I'm not into consentual living with my kids. There are some things for which the only solution that I'm willing to live with is doing it 'my' way -- mainly safety issues, but a few other things.

That's why I also use logical consequences. Logical consequences are what happens when I'm not willing to live with the natural consequences.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by justKate

For example, if you drop your biscuit from the chair, I will pick it up for you. If you drop it a second time, I will help you pick it up. If you drop it a third time and shriek with glee because mama has to pick it up yet again, I will find some other way of giving you attention and you will not get the biscuit back.

If you rip mama's glasses off of her face, I will tell you to stop and put the glasses back on. If you try to do it again, you will sit next to mama instead of in her arms, because glasses are expensive and mama needs them and we cannot play with them.

AND THE BIG ONE: If you chew mama's nipple on purpose it will go away for a little while until you settle down/are gentle.

In your first example, I think that is natural consequences. You are not required to pick the biscuit up. If you do once or twice, that's fine, but eventually, the natural consequence is that if you drop your biscuit, it is on the floor.

I think that your other two examples are enforcing boundaries. Some parents think that they should let their children do whatever they want, even if they are hurting other people. It could be argued that these are natural consequences or not, but in my book, it is very important to demand that others respect you in order to set an example for your children that they don't ever have to put up with somebody hurting them.

Originally Posted by Aliyahsmommy

See my problem is that my 2 year old daughter refuses to wear a coat 99.9% of the time no matter how cold it is outside or how cold I know she must be(Ex:hands and face are red and cold and I myself am freezing!) I'm never sure whether to just let her not wear the coat even though the natural consequence does not seem to work or insist she wear the coat? By the way I do carry the coat around and offer it often, but it is always refused. Sorry to hijack for a moment OP!

I wonder if it's gotten to the point that it's a control thing on her part. She doesn't want to admit that she's cold because she doesn't want to admit that you're right. Maybe just carry it around and don't offer until she complains of being cold.

[Llyra]

Originally Posted by JMJ

I wonder if it's gotten to the point that it's a control thing on her part. She doesn't want to admit that she's cold because she doesn't want to admit that you're right. Maybe just carry it around and don't offer until she complains of being cold.

My DD1 is like that. Once I've strongly expressed my opinion that something is right/good/necessary/appropriate, she will go to the ends of the earth to avoid agreeing with me, even if she has to endure severe discomfort or unpleasantness. So most of the time, I just have to keep my mouth shut, and let her come to her own conclusions.

"I'm COOOOLLLLLDDDD!!!!!!"

me: (carefully avoiding mentioning a coat) "So what do you think you should do?"

Heaven help me if I say, "you could put on your coat." She'll have lost half her left leg to frostbite before she'll admit I'm right.

I can't complain too much, though. She comes by it honestly. I'm the stubbornest person I ever met, besides my own mother, who's worse.