Natural consequences FAIL.

[Crunchie]

So, I consider myself a pretty down-to-earth, common sense kind of parent (usually). My son is 3-years old, and I like to explain to him the natural consequences of his actions when he's doing something I need him to stop doing. Don't ride your bike too fast & with no helmet because you might get hurt. Don't leave the refrigerator door open because it's wasteful. If you hit (kick, bite, etc.) people or animals it hurts them, and that's not ok. If you bash your toy car with a hammer, you're going to break it and then you won't have it anymore, which is sad. Etc., etc., etc.

Well, this just doesn't work with my son. Ever. Never has. He was very verbal from a very young age, and while I try not to get too preachy/lecture him/go into long, complicated explanations, he is--and has been for a long time--perfectly capable of understanding, for example, that if he breaks a toy to pieces he's lost the toy. If he is destroying a toy and I tell him to stop because he's going to break it and then, sadly, the toy will be gone--he tells me "fine, I don't want the toy. Throw it away when it's all broken." If I tell him to stop climbing on the counter because I don't want him to fall and get hurt, he asks what will happen if he falls (or, depending on his mood, just tell me he wants to get hurt). I explain he could scrape himself or hurt his head or even break a bone. He will then continue the line of questioning..."and then what will I have to do if I break a bone?" I'll explain that we'd then have to go to the hospital and have a doctor "fix" it, and that breaking a bone hurts a lot. He'll then tell me he'll keep climbing on the counter, because he wants to go to the hospital and see the doctor.

These types of conversations happen several times a day. DS usually questions me down to the last detail, if he can, and almost always arrives at the conclusion that he'll just keep doing what he's doing, thankyouverymuch, 'cause he just doesn't care about (or prefers) the consequence(s) of his action. The end result usually escalates into unpleasantness for both of us. If he can't stop breaking something when I ask him to & explain the consequence of what he's doing, I simply take the toy away. If he's climbing the counter and won't stop, I physically stop him. The usually results in an explosive tantrum. I try to explain that I can't let him break things--or himself!--but to no avail.

I'm gonna go insane.

I don't want to yell and threaten, and I find myself doing just that more and more. I understand that at his age, he's quite definitely still in the self-centered stage, and he hasn't developed empathy--so he really might not care about the consequence of hurting someone else. I'm not concerned about having to work on modeling being kind to others 'till he develops his own sense of it. But I would think that losing a favorite toy, hurting himself, not getting to do something fun, etc., would be a natural consequence that he does care about! What gives!?

If the natural consequence isn't enough to deter him, and I don't want to threaten, scream, or punish punitively, just what the heck am I supposed to do? Oh, and if he's set on something enough to argue the details, re-direction isn't gonna phase him. We try that all. the. time. Put that one down as another technique that the kidlet never fell for.

Any suggestions would be greatly welcomed. I want to give my child the tools to eventually be able to control his impulses and make good decisions, but I feel more & more like we're spiraling into some sort of awful cycle of yelling and controlling behavior.

[gcgirl]

3 is still young to GET it. DS1 is almost 3, and while he is VERY verbal, it doesn't mean he gets cause and effect. I can't "talk him down"; I still have to physically remove him from the open refrigerator, pushing his little brother, climbing on the counter, etc...

Give it time.

[LynnS6]

3 year olds can't developmentally see that far ahead. They have to EXPERIENCE the natural consequences to get it. If it's something like wearing a coat, going outside for 2 minutes in 10 degree weather (yes, I let my dd do that) gets the point across. Dd also experienced the natural consequence of riding her bike shirtless. I probably should have stepped in there. I DO step in for riding a bike without shoes and wearing a helmet. (simply not allowed).

I would suggest a completely different tactic: Instead of telling him why he shouldn't do something, do two things:
1) Tell him what he should do. "Keep your feet on the floor. If you want something from the cupboard, let's get the stepstool."
2) If he asks 'why'? (Keep your feet on the floor. why?) Ask him "what do you think could happen if you stand on the counter?" Instead of TELLING him, help him think through the consequences by asking leading questions.

I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.

[mama2cal&darby]

I agree with the pps. At this age he just can't understand what the consequences feel like if you are telling him what they would be. Using *natural consequences* as a discipline technique means allowing a child to experience the natural consequence of their actions. Obviously, you can't allow him to experience them in many of the circumstances you find yourself in, I would also talk less and act more at this stage.

[ssh]

I also tell my DD why an action is dangerous or even just a bad idea. If she tries to do it anyway, I physically stop her and say "I can't let you xyz, it's dangerous". She usually listens pretty well now at almost 5. Your DS may still be developing impulse control.

[Adasmommy]

The problem with natural consequences is that if you're willing to experience them, there's no reason to desist in an action. Like when I stay up late watching a movie and am tired the next day. My choice.

So, if he wants to break his toy, I'd let him. Maybe tell him that you won't be buying him toys if he breaks them (because it's expensive). If he's going to break someone else's toy it will have to be taken away and I'd hand him his own toy to break.

As far as breaking a bone, obviously, don't let him! Tell him it's important to take care of our bodies, and it's your job to take care of his until he can do it. So you won't be letting him on the counter. But we can do this totally fun thing instead . . .

You could also mention that if he broke a bone, he wouldn't be able to run, ride his bike, play at the park, go swimming this summer...whatever would apply.

Good luck with your handful!

[sapphire_chan]

Part of the problem is that you're trying to use natural consequences for things where the natural consequence is real problem for the whole family.

I'd switch to logical consequences.

For instance, he can't keep off the counters and keep you from worrying that he'll fall and break his arm? Then the consequence is that he doesn't get to go in the kitchen by himself so you don't have to worry.

If you have to tell him about the natural consequence, it won't help matters. It needs to be something where you can just step aside and let it happen. Which means it can't be serious things like getting hit by a car and such.

Re: the toy, I'd hand him a broom and dust pan.

[waiting2bemommy]

I have a very verbal advanced almost 3 yr old, and I agree with the others that many times the consequences really are not real to them until they experience it. with the whole bike riding scenario, I finally told my ds that if he fell down and got hurt and had to go in the ambulance (which he said he wanted to ride in the ambulance so was going to continue to ride in the street without permission) that he would bleed and bleed and have to lay down for a loong long time and maybe have a surgery where the doctor would cut him with a knife to see his insides, and mommies are not allowed to go in there so he would be by himself.

then I started grounding him for the whole day every time he ignored the rule. zero warnings. I see you head for the street, you go in the house for the rest of the day.

Graphic and hardcore, I know, but now he finally stopped ignoring me and has become very conscientious about staying away from the street.

also on the line of natural consequences, ds deliberately threw my phone into his kiddie pool after I asked him not to. The consequence? I took a bunch of his toys to the consignment store and sold them to get money to buy a new phone. I felt awful about it but I truly did not have any money at all for a new phone (about $25) and I figured it was natural consequence. He has never again been rough with my phone or anything else of mine.

the down side of natural consequences is that if you actually let them play out, sometimes they are even more uncomfortable or unpleasant than just time out or a pop on the hand would be. But the lessons really stick.

I give a warning or two about natural consequences and then that is it. Unless it is going to result in serious, unrecoverable bodily injury, I don't step in. My ds is like me....he is from the school of hard knocks. He only learns the hard way.

In the toy scenario, I would let him destroy the toys (all of our toys come from thrift stores anyway) If it was soemthing I spent a lot for, I would just put it uo in my closet and say "I like to play with that toy too so I'm saving it for myself since I don't want you to break it" then when he runs out of toys, he will have to entertain himself another way. I'm not going to buy any new toys anytime soon.

[DevaMajka]

I found with ds1 that I was causing stress for both of us by expecting HIM to make the "right" decision. Even though I wasn't making him do something (ie using force, threats, etc), I was making him choose to do it (I was upset if he didn't).

It seems like your ds is hearing your explanations as you giving him an option. Don't make it an option. I'm a huge fan of giving explanations, but at your ds's age, it's more of an informational thing. I always said something like "You can't break your toy" insert explanation.

With ds1, some things had logical type consequences- you wear your helmet, or you don't ride your bike. I was fine with either choice. You wear sunscreen, or you don't spend the day at the beach.

[Minxie]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.

[Tjej]

Yeah, natural consequences are the kind you don't even explain - they just naturally happen.

You have every right as a parent and person with way more life experience to make choices on your son's behalf that keep him safe. Tell him what to do (keep feet on floor, stay on sidewalk, etc.). Help him do the right thing. Feel free to explain WHY we do it (we stay on the sidewalk so we are safe from cars), but don't give him the choice of doing it or not. Many things in life are choices. Some are not. You have every right to draw that line.

Tjej

[Crunchie]

Thank you so much everyone! The replies have been very helpful.

I realize that my son might not always "get" cause and effect--I am guilty of assuming things of him that are developmentally not appropriate sometimes, so it is good to have the reminder that he is only 3 and these things will take time! He can and does explain cause and effect to me sometimes, so in the moment I might be expecting too much. Last night, for example, he was playing with a small pumpkin that I had put on the counter. I started to tell him to be careful with it (not wanting it to fall from the counter to the tile floor and smash), when he told me "I'll be careful. I don't want it to fall and break, I want to eat it in a pie!" So sometimes he does get it, but I need to step back and realize that he doesn't always really get it.

Also, I was lumping natural consequences in with logical consequences in my mind when I wrote my post. I guess I am not thinking through the fact that natural consequences should be experienced. Again, it helps to hear that sometimes he just needs to experience them, and that an explanation (at his age) isn't always going to be appropriate. I definitely do give logical consequences. A lot ("if you don't wear your helmet you aren't riding your bike" or "if you are going to break that toy, I'm going to have to put it away for awhile" would be common examples). And often I don't bother to explain, at least not up front, and do just tell him that he can't do x or y or z. There are plenty of times that I don't give him an option--it's just that you can't do that because it's unsafe, hurtful, whatever. But I see where my trying to explain the natural consequences gives him an option. And that isn't usually my intention, at least not in these situations!

Of course, I do try to give him plenty of reasonable options throughout the day, but that's a whole different thing. And now that I've written it down and gotten some good feedback, I realize that my offering up a "if you do x, then y will happen" does give him the choice to go ahead and keep doing x, because y just isn't that big of a deal in his little mind. It also opens up the topic for argument, which isn't usually where I want to go with it. I don't mind at all drawing lines and telling him no. Honestly, I've arrived at this point because I think I do that too much, or at least do that in a way that is not gentle. But maybe what I need to do is take it back a step & keep it more simple for awhile.

[LionessMom]

after my 3yo breaks stuff or hurts herself i always asks her if she learned a lesson. sometimes she has an answer, somtimes i have to give her the answer.

[tbone_kneegrabber]

Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy

also on the line of natural consequences, ds deliberately threw my phone into his kiddie pool after I asked him not to. The consequence? I took a bunch of his toys to the consignment store and sold them to get money to buy a new phone. I felt awful about it but I truly did not have any money at all for a new phone (about $25) and I figured it was natural consequence. He has never again been rough with my phone or anything else of mine.
.

I just want to point out that is not a natural consequence. It is a logical consequence. The "natural" consequence is that the phone is broken, and mama is mad/angry/upset etc.

I think it was a legitimate consequence, I just want to point out for this thread (this was just an easy example) that you don't *do* ANYTHING for a natural consequence. It just happens. No coat = cold, natural. No coat=stay inside, logical/imposed. smash toy=toy broken, natural. smash toy=toy removed, logical/imposed.

The other issue (especially with 3 yos and natural consequences) is that the consequence doesn't always happen. If you climb on the counter you *could* fall and get hurt, but there's no guarantee that will happen. If you ride your bike without a helmet you *might* get hurt, but you might not.

Ds will do something, I'll explain the natural consequence, "If you drop that glass on the ground it will break" he drops the glass, it doesn't break, he responds "I dropped it and it didn't break!!!" And I say, "well it could have, give it me!" which is not really working out that great.

Logical/imposed consequences are for when the natural consequence is terrible, or only a possibility (might get hurt, could break etc), or to teach some skill or lesson (break my phone on purpose, I'll sell your toys to replace it).

And 3 yo's freak out when consequences are imposed, they are little hormonal teenagers trapped in toddler bodies, with expressive language skills compared to older kids, with little to no logic and no impulse control.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Thank you so much everyone! The replies have been very helpful.

I realize that my son might not always "get" cause and effect--I am guilty of assuming things of him that are developmentally not appropriate sometimes, so it is good to have the reminder that he is only 3 and these things will take time!

I've got verbal kids too, and it's hard. They sound like they're older than they are, and so when they act their age, I'm sometimes stunned.

Originally Posted by Crunchie

But I see where my trying to explain the natural consequences gives him an option. And that isn't usually my intention, at least not in these situations!

Yes, that's because you understand both the direct meaning (if you do x, the toy will break = description) and the indirect one (if you do x and the toy will break = STOP DOING X). Preschoolers often only interpret the direct speech act. "Oh, mom's describing for me what will happen. Interesting."

[VroomieMama]

Originally Posted by LynnS6

3 year olds can't developmentally see that far ahead. They have to EXPERIENCE the natural consequences to get it. If it's something like wearing a coat, going outside for 2 minutes in 10 degree weather (yes, I let my dd do that) gets the point across. Dd also experienced the natural consequence of riding her bike shirtless. I probably should have stepped in there. I DO step in for riding a bike without shoes and wearing a helmet. (simply not allowed).

I would suggest a completely different tactic: Instead of telling him why he shouldn't do something, do two things:
1) Tell him what he should do. "Keep your feet on the floor. If you want something from the cupboard, let's get the stepstool."
2) If he asks 'why'? (Keep your feet on the floor. why?) Ask him "what do you think could happen if you stand on the counter?" Instead of TELLING him, help him think through the consequences by asking leading questions.

I'd also be a little firmer up front. If he's misusing a toy so that it will break, say "Please be gentle with that toy." "Oops, looks like you can't be gentle with that toy, I'll have to keep it safe." And take the toy and give it a toy time out. "Please get down from the counter." If he doesn't, "it looks like you need me to help you down. Next time, I want you to get down yourself."

Sometimes I find that less explanation and more action makes all of us happier.

[VroomieMama]

Originally Posted by tbone_kneegrabber

I just want to point out that is not a natural consequence. It is a logical consequence. The "natural" consequence is that the phone is broken, and mama is mad/angry/upset etc.

I think it was a legitimate consequence, I just want to point out for this thread (this was just an easy example) that you don't *do* ANYTHING for a natural consequence. It just happens. No coat = cold, natural. No coat=stay inside, logical/imposed. smash toy=toy broken, natural. smash toy=toy removed, logical/imposed.

The other issue (especially with 3 yos and natural consequences) is that the consequence doesn't always happen. If you climb on the counter you *could* fall and get hurt, but there's no guarantee that will happen. If you ride your bike without a helmet you *might* get hurt, but you might not.

Ds will do something, I'll explain the natural consequence, "If you drop that glass on the ground it will break" he drops the glass, it doesn't break, he responds "I dropped it and it didn't break!!!" And I say, "well it could have, give it me!" which is not really working out that great.

Logical/imposed consequences are for when the natural consequence is terrible, or only a possibility (might get hurt, could break etc), or to teach some skill or lesson (break my phone on purpose, I'll sell your toys to replace it).

And 3 yo's freak out when consequences are imposed, they are little hormonal teenagers trapped in toddler bodies, with expressive language skills compared to older kids, with little to no logic and no impulse control.

Thank you.. I'm still learning and trying to understand the difference between the natural and logical consequence.

Question:
My toddlers are fascinated with climbing over the sofa's arm to the recliner but there is a small end table in between and I'm always afraid that they'd fall in between and hurt their head or worse. Or they'd climb on a cooler that I use to store children books (prefer it than using shelves to store books) and the cooler is there to "block" them from playing with electric fire place door on the bottom of the floor. I've always had to put them in the play yard without any toys in it immediately after when I ask them to get off for the 3rd time. Is this one of the logical consequence approach? What would you have done if you're faced in this situation?

[Minxie]

Originally Posted by Crunchie

I definitely do give logical consequences. A lot ("if you don't wear your helmet you aren't riding your bike" or "if you are going to break that toy, I'm going to have to put it away for awhile" would be common examples). And often I don't bother to explain, at least not up front, and do just tell him that he can't do x or y or z.

I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way. Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!

"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)

[VroomieMama]

Originally Posted by Minxie

I mean this kindly so please interpret tone that way. Were it me, I might try to phrase these statements in a less negative way.

For example:

"You must wear your helmet to ride your bike." "If you want to wear your helmet, you are welcome to ride your bicycle." It just eliminates the "don't"s which often seem to be all they hear!

"I'll be glad to put away that toy until you are able to control your body." (or play with it properly, or be careful, etc.)

Yeah I have heard that its better to avoid negative comment like "NO" or "Don't"

[Minxie]

Originally Posted by VroomieMama

Question:
My toddlers are fascinated with climbing over the sofa's arm to the recliner but there is a small end table in between and I'm always afraid that they'd fall in between and hurt their head or worse. Or they'd climb on a cooler that I use to store children books (prefer it than using shelves to store books) and the cooler is there to "block" them from playing with electric fire place door on the bottom of the floor. I've always had to put them in the play yard without any toys in it immediately after when I ask them to get off for the 3rd time. Is this one of the logical consequence approach? What would you have done if you're faced in this situation?

What motivates them? Is it the climbing? Is there a toy they're after? Why are they doing it? If it's climbing, can you provide a safe place for them to climb? Or create a special place for them nearby, like a secret fort or play corner?

Were it me and my DS:

"You are welcome in the living room when you can control your body." and then I will escort him to his room. It's not a time-out; he can play in his room or he can control himself in the living room. He determines when he is ready to follow the rules and act in a civilized manner. ("Mom, I'm ready to be civilized now!!!!")

I mention "control your body" and "your choices" a lot to him so that he learns he is responsible for his decisions. ALWAYS, ALWAYS in a loving (but firm), empathetic tone; sarcasm will NOT work.