"Natural consequences" where they don't happen?
It is often recommended that the negative, behavior of children, i.e. behavior unwanted by their parents, should be met with its "natural consequences". For example being cold outside in winter will teach your child to wear mittens without your interference. But there is some behavior where a natural consequence is hard for me to imagine.
Imagine there is a 6 year old child who reacts with outbursts of extreme anger whenever his parents end their special play time (i.e. the time the parents play "on their knees" with their child). The natural consequence seems to be not to play again with the child. But this seems extreme, contrary to the wishes of both parent and child, and leave no exit, because the child gets no future chance to display positive behavior. On the other hand, simply playing together again the next day will show the child that his behavior has no consequences.
So what would natural consequences be for:
running away
threatening (with gesture) to hit parents, or actually hitting them
being angry at parents for the child's own failures
and similar behavior from a six year old boy?
(2)2 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
I think the natural consequence of antisocial behaviors is that people do not want to spend time with you. When your child is misbehaving in these ways, a time out is appropriate - you withdraw your attention from the child because the child has abused your attention-giving. It is not a physical consequence in the way that cold makes a child put on mittens, it is a social consequence.
Beyond having pleasant interactions with your child, you have a longer goal here of teaching your child how to behave with others. Other children will not tolerate these behaviors and will refuse to have anything to do with a child who is unpleasant. By removing your attention for a short period, you are demonstrating to your child the consequences he will feel when he acts this way towards others.
I find natural consequences to be my preference, since they tend to generally be more instructive than "do what I say because those are the rules".
However, in some circumstances, natural consequences are simply not a viable option.
In those instances, a substitute consequence is entirely appropriate. Failure to tie in a "natural" consequence should not result in the child getting away with no consequences.
At six, loss of small (or large, depending on the severity of the infraction) privileges is usually a good substitute.
However, be sure to look carefully to see if an appropriate natural consequence can be found before going to a substitute.
In the examples you listed, I'd think that restricted ability to play outside without close supervision would be a natural consequence of a child running away ("you have to stay right here by mommy and daddy until we can trust you to not run away").
If a child threatens to hit, or actually hits, someone, including but not limited to a parent, the natural consequence is canceling an activity involving the person hit (e.g. "we're not going to the playground because you hit me, and that really hurt my feelings, so I don't feel like doing something fun with you right now").
Similarly, a child being angry with a parent because of the child failing to accomplish something has a natural consequence of hurting the parent's feelings. In this case, though, a simple, but sincere, apology might be sufficient, if the child's anger and frustration can be redirected.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.