This one can be difficult, seeing how it’s cultural, like many things are. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “back in my day…” Good for you, I’m happy that you enjoyed getting beat by your parents. However, a different generation, a different society, a different decade, a different millenium; brings billions of new variables to the table in how that child will respond to the consequences. Not to mention, social services may not like it so much.
It’s simple: aggression teaches aggression
If there’s one correlation I’ve subjectively witnessed with kids that have received corporal punishment is that they’re aggressive. Nearly always. Another example of this is when signing a kid up for karate, kung-fu, tae kwon do, etc. The point is to get them involved in something active and teach them self defense, but can a 7 year old really handle that? Can a child have the restraint and distinguish the difference between when something is justified?
I’d argue a big “NO.” Most children don’t even learn the basics of morality until they’re teenagers, and we all know how grey an area that is, since we all have been teenagers, or at least one assumes. Most of the time, you’re not teaching them how to defend themselves; you’re teaching them how to offend against others.
How you do it is often more important than what you do
There’s a little bit of a science to this. Call it a “soft science.” An example I often give is to imagine a hypothetical scenario where you take your child to their soccer game. The kid is 5 years old, let’s say. In one scenario, you tell the child on the way to the soccer game that if they try their hardest, are respectful to the players on their team and the other team; that you’ll bring them to get ice cream afterwards. This is great. It’s an incentive so it’s positive, it’s short term (immediately after the game/action,) it’s specific, it’s age appropriate, and it’s realistic. All of these elements are paramount to effective teaching.
The other scenario, is where you bring the child to the game, the child gets upset because the other kids aren’t passing them the ball, or someone accidentally kicked them, or whatever. In response the child starts screaming and throwing a little tizzy. You (the parent) go to the child and tell them if they stop screaming and flipping out, you’ll go get them an ice cream after the game. Well my friend, you just took the first steps in creating a little monster! Congratulations!!! It’s all in the details.
Incentives work better than consequences
Any ABA therapist worth some salt will tell you incentives work better than consequences. This is not soft science, it’s hard science. In the field we typically only do consequences when the behavior is severe, AKA aggressive. Incentives teach a child that they need to earn the things they want, and in a highly capitalistic society, this is important to teach them for adulthood. To be effective, consequences need to be short term. I can not stress this enough.
Promising you’ll take a child to Disney World next summer if they get good grades is all well in fine, but it won’t really do anything. You could help the process with some visual aids, such as a calendar on the fridge showing their grades and how close they are so they can see it and measure it every day, but in the end; 6 months, one month, one week might as well be a lifetime for a child who is 3-10 years old mentally.
This is where appropriateness based on age comes in. I’ve seen and heard multiple variations of systems like this in regards to consequences too. Minutes in time out based on their age, for example. But why not keep it simple? Whether they’re 3 or 17, keep it short term. A 17 year old can maybe handle an incentive that comes in a week or a consequence that lasts a week; a 3 year old definitely can’t, so there is some variation of course. The point is, you can’t lose if you’re keeping the incentive within that day.
Consequences can trap your child, and you
Consequences get way more complicated, and can cause you much more frustration. I’ve witnessed many times, parents getting caught up in the trap of consequences. I’ll give you another easy scenario. A child refuses to follow through with their responsibilities, like cleaning up their room, or themselves, or whatever. The parent says the child loses their video game for a week, and pulls the A/C cord (you have my respect for taking the cord and hiding it, or even locking it away would be better.) Now the child has nothing to do inside, and seeing how most parents are too terrified to even let their child outside, it’s often the case that video games are a kids go-to for entertainment.
The child is now going to do what they can to drive you crazy because they’re bored, and because children can be crazy manipulative and often way better at it than adults. So, often the parent will then take something else away, and then something else, and then something else, until there’s nothing left to take away. Now the child has nothing left to lose and the parent doesn’t know what to do, and now we’re going down the rabbit hole. Not good. Taking things away can be risky and complicated. Long term incentives or consequences do not work well.
We’ll talk further about isolation and manipulative behavior soon.