Focusing on the Goals of Discipline

One of the things I love about being a pediatrician is that I get to think about some of life’s deeper questions with the families under my care. How can we help him be kinder to his sister? Will she still love me if let her cry it out at bedtime? What can we do so that he knows the difference between right and wrong? Parents worry about these issues and are sometimes in conflict with each other, as well as with the habits they have from their own upbringing on what to do.

Fortunately, nature is on our side. Dr. Marc D. Hauser in his book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006) describes how biology determines what is experienced as right or wrong, predisposing humans to behaviors that not only promote their own survival but that of their social group as well. But broad biological forces don’t help with day-to-day child rearing decisions – or do they?

While most parents asking for our help with discipline say that the main thing they want is to "Stop him from being bad"; protecting the child from harm comes in the next breath, especially for younger children. When parents give an example of important discipline they are sure you will understand and endorse, it is most often a smack they deliver to keep the child from running into the street. This example is useful in conversations about discipline as it is actually a well-intentioned desire to teach the child life skills, personal survival being the first. The smack is effective, not because of its pain on the skin but rather because of the accompanying emotional scream of fear the parent delivers simultaneously, conveying that survival is at stake. "To teach" is the underlying origin of the word discipline, and teaching not only personal survival but also social survival should be the overarching goals.

What are some of the other life skills parents struggle to teach their charges in the ultimately short 18 years they get to do this? To wait your turn, to share, to clean up, to bathe regularly, to leave other people’s stuff alone, to tell the truth (and later to not always say it so bluntly). This reminds me of the Boy Scout law and also the ever-true quote "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten." How come this learning is attributed to kindergarten and not to the parents? Probably because the teaching in kindergarten is made completely clear, written on the board, reviewed every day, applied to everyone equally, and, in the best programs, made into a cheerful group game by a beloved teacher. All parents can aspire to and learn from these methods!

The best, and actually the easiest method of discipline, is establishing structure – otherwise called routines – just like kindergarten. When children experience a structure for the day – meals at the table, clean up after play, hand washing before eating, bedtimes with a book – they feel like a part of the family and derive meaning for their lives. With routines, children cease resisting even things they would prefer not to do, such as go to bed. Routines promote socialized behaviors in any environment, from palace to homeless shelter. The family is basically making clear the rules, saying, "Here is how we do it." Children are very interested in learning this and watch closely to see if this is how the grown-ups really behave. Having your actions match your words rather than being hypocritical is one of the ways having children makes us clean up our acts!

With young children, modeling the desired behavior is by far the best way to teach it. Actually, that applies at all ages and, even though ’tweens and teens will moan, they are still watching. Kindness to siblings, forgiveness for lapses, restraining anger when frustrated, pitching in to clean up, and persistence on difficult tasks are desired behaviors that are somewhat hard to describe. Of course, the opposite is also true – demonstrating angry, out-of-control behaviors has an even bigger impact, as they are often associated with high dramatic emotion that puts a special mark on them in the child’s memory. "You reap what you sow" applies well to parent modeling.

Not all desired behaviors can be taught by modeling, however. It is a slow method and also depends on a child’s interest in and ability to copy. With the drive for autonomy, children may even do the opposite of what they see done! The best way to teach a desired behavior when it is complicated or not being picked up by observation includes saying exactly and simply what is wanted – "Please pick up your jacket"– and providing immediate reinforcement of approximations of the desired behavior. Younger children learn best with concrete rewards – a sticker, a trinket, or a pat on the head with a description of what they did that was good and a happy smile. Using smaller rewards helps even stingy parents reward every time they should, and keep the child from having tantrums over huge prizes they crave but have not yet earned. Larger rewards or consequences actually have been shown to reduce a child’s sense of responsibility for a behavior, presumably as they justify their compliance as intended solely to get the prize. Gradually, praise suffices. Praise is still best when it includes a specific description of the steps accomplished – "Good job finding so many of your toys" – and including the social value – "It makes me feel proud that you are getting to be a good helper".

The next step up in reinforcement is to elicit self-praise to encourage ownership of positive acts. When a child completes his homework a parent might ask, "How do you think you did today?" In the end, one hopes that youth (and adults) are rewarded by satisfaction beyond just following the rules as they adhere to higher principles even when no one is watching.

The approach of praise and rewards sounds great, but you will quickly hear from parents, in perhaps a sarcastic tone, "But what do I do if that doesn’t work?" Especially with younger children and those who are more intense, active, or negative by temperament, consequences are also needed to help socialize. The best consequences don’t come from parents at all. Natural consequences -– from biting the breast that ends the feeding to wearing shorts and getting cold – may be better remembered when no comments are added. Hard as it is not to say, "I told you so," silence or even sympathy helps the child feel that their parent is on their side while making it clear who chose the result.

Natural consequence are not always safe (think physical survival) nor are their effects always immediately evident, however. Children may not see that they are losing friends by tattling, for example (social survival). Part of the art of discipline is to figure out appropriate planned consequences that are prompt, logically related to the misbehavior, and of the right size, smaller being better. For infants, the main consequence of significance is loss of pleasure or interest, for example being removed from mom’s lap if they pull her hair. "I won’t let you hurt me" is the message optimally also delivered verbally and with some voiced emotion. Infants as young as 9 months can have their behavior altered by use of 15 seconds of time out – a combination of physical removal and loss of adult attention. Toddlers care about this, too, but most of all they don’t like the loss of freedom if they are restrained, made to sit, or grasped and silently taken to participate in the task, which I teach as "One request, then move."

From preschool on, loss of privileges is often the consequence most meaningfully related to offenses, such as the toy goes in time out if it is used in a dangerous way. Keeping "toy time out" short conveys confidence that the child can learn to do better and gives more opportunities for practice. The brief explanation that should go along with it – "You can’t play with this bat if you swing it near the breakable dishes" – also teaches the causal connection.

Teaching social survival skills should center on education about the child’s effects on others and the need to repair mistakes. Whenever possible, children who have made a mistake can give the other child an extra turn, compensate for a broken toy with one of their own, or work to earn money to pay for it. The apologies which are essential for social survival are better learned by the adult modeling them – "I am so sorry he hurt you" – rather than forced from a still angry child. Even preschool children and definitely older ones can be involved in the process of self-assessing appropriate consequences by being asked, "What do you think should happen as a result?"

Just as for rewards, immediate consequences are better, while they can still remember what they did and connect the deed to the result. Smaller is better here, too. Parents, even overly compassionate ones, are more likely to invoke a consequence and do it consistently, if it is small. Children punished too harshly remember feeling more hurt and angry than feeling sorry for their misdeed. Smaller consequences also help a child infer self-responsibility rather than dwelling on how mean their parent is. Parents are more willing to take this advice when they are reminded that teaching survival skills is the goal, not retribution.

What is effective for modeling, rewarding, and giving consequences depends on individual child temperament, past experiences that may numb or prime their reactions, and current privileges that may make them turn up their nose at a small reward. More importantly, how effective parents are as teachers of these life skills depends on their relationship with the child. A child will not regret losing attention or approval if there is none. Showing disappointment or anger when a child misbehaves may even backfire if the child is angry at the adult and wants to hurt them as they were hurt, for example in reaction to corporal punishment.

While typically developing children of all ages also respond to disapproval from their caregivers, there are some important disadvantages to using disapproval as a teaching tool even though it comes quite naturally to parents. Children are calmer, more observant, and more likely to model after and seek to please parents who show affection, acceptance, and positive regard for them. Shaming may stop a behavior and get a child to show remorse, but it undermines the power of the relationship for all the other teaching that is needed.

Perhaps the most universally accepted moral rule parents want to teach is the Golden One – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is really the key lesson for group survival and also for the survival task of being a socially acceptable/desirable social partner like finding a mate! Providing an explanation of social impact and not just a reward or a consequence helps teach the child the social principles they need to know. Including "I messages" about how the adult feels – "It makes me feel sad and like I can’t trust you when you take things that are not yours" – is far more instructive than "I have told you not to steal things!" Negative labels such as calling a child a thief, often an echo from the parent’s own experiences as a child, print a negative label in child’s mind that they may live down to, weakens their relationship with the parent by conveying a lack of acceptance, and shuts down their ability to listen to the lesson. This can be a hard reaction to change for some parents. A better alternative is to limit "scoldings" and try to begin them with a statement about the child’s core values before giving a consequence. An example might be saying, "I know you are a really good friend to Matt and want him to have fun when he comes over, but you didn’t follow the rule about football in the house, so he will have to go home now." Rather than apologize for giving a child consequences, a parent can express positive intent, for example saying, "I know you are a good person, and I am going to teach you not to do bad things so you and others will know that, too."

Over the years as parents teach children the survival rules we call discipline, they have the additional opportunity to teach some of the skills that contribute to personal well being and a happy life. They can teach self knowledge – "You get so excited that it is hard for you to wait but..."; elicit from them new strategies for self control – "What could you do differently next time?"; and promote self-compassion – "You are good at heart and learning every day. I am sure you will do better next time."

In providing discipline for children, as those moral icons the Rolling Stones reminded us, "You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need."

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Elsevier. E-mail her at [email protected].

One of the things I love about being a pediatrician is that I get to think about some of life’s deeper questions with the families under my care. How can we help him be kinder to his sister? Will she still love me if let her cry it out at bedtime? What can we do so that he knows the difference between right and wrong? Parents worry about these issues and are sometimes in conflict with each other, as well as with the habits they have from their own upbringing on what to do.

Fortunately, nature is on our side. Dr. Marc D. Hauser in his book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006) describes how biology determines what is experienced as right or wrong, predisposing humans to behaviors that not only promote their own survival but that of their social group as well. But broad biological forces don’t help with day-to-day child rearing decisions – or do they?

While most parents asking for our help with discipline say that the main thing they want is to "Stop him from being bad"; protecting the child from harm comes in the next breath, especially for younger children. When parents give an example of important discipline they are sure you will understand and endorse, it is most often a smack they deliver to keep the child from running into the street. This example is useful in conversations about discipline as it is actually a well-intentioned desire to teach the child life skills, personal survival being the first. The smack is effective, not because of its pain on the skin but rather because of the accompanying emotional scream of fear the parent delivers simultaneously, conveying that survival is at stake. "To teach" is the underlying origin of the word discipline, and teaching not only personal survival but also social survival should be the overarching goals.

What are some of the other life skills parents struggle to teach their charges in the ultimately short 18 years they get to do this? To wait your turn, to share, to clean up, to bathe regularly, to leave other people’s stuff alone, to tell the truth (and later to not always say it so bluntly). This reminds me of the Boy Scout law and also the ever-true quote "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten." How come this learning is attributed to kindergarten and not to the parents? Probably because the teaching in kindergarten is made completely clear, written on the board, reviewed every day, applied to everyone equally, and, in the best programs, made into a cheerful group game by a beloved teacher. All parents can aspire to and learn from these methods!

The best, and actually the easiest method of discipline, is establishing structure – otherwise called routines – just like kindergarten. When children experience a structure for the day – meals at the table, clean up after play, hand washing before eating, bedtimes with a book – they feel like a part of the family and derive meaning for their lives. With routines, children cease resisting even things they would prefer not to do, such as go to bed. Routines promote socialized behaviors in any environment, from palace to homeless shelter. The family is basically making clear the rules, saying, "Here is how we do it." Children are very interested in learning this and watch closely to see if this is how the grown-ups really behave. Having your actions match your words rather than being hypocritical is one of the ways having children makes us clean up our acts!

With young children, modeling the desired behavior is by far the best way to teach it. Actually, that applies at all ages and, even though ’tweens and teens will moan, they are still watching. Kindness to siblings, forgiveness for lapses, restraining anger when frustrated, pitching in to clean up, and persistence on difficult tasks are desired behaviors that are somewhat hard to describe. Of course, the opposite is also true – demonstrating angry, out-of-control behaviors has an even bigger impact, as they are often associated with high dramatic emotion that puts a special mark on them in the child’s memory. "You reap what you sow" applies well to parent modeling.

Not all desired behaviors can be taught by modeling, however. It is a slow method and also depends on a child’s interest in and ability to copy. With the drive for autonomy, children may even do the opposite of what they see done! The best way to teach a desired behavior when it is complicated or not being picked up by observation includes saying exactly and simply what is wanted – "Please pick up your jacket"– and providing immediate reinforcement of approximations of the desired behavior. Younger children learn best with concrete rewards – a sticker, a trinket, or a pat on the head with a description of what they did that was good and a happy smile. Using smaller rewards helps even stingy parents reward every time they should, and keep the child from having tantrums over huge prizes they crave but have not yet earned. Larger rewards or consequences actually have been shown to reduce a child’s sense of responsibility for a behavior, presumably as they justify their compliance as intended solely to get the prize. Gradually, praise suffices. Praise is still best when it includes a specific description of the steps accomplished – "Good job finding so many of your toys" – and including the social value – "It makes me feel proud that you are getting to be a good helper".

The next step up in reinforcement is to elicit self-praise to encourage ownership of positive acts. When a child completes his homework a parent might ask, "How do you think you did today?" In the end, one hopes that youth (and adults) are rewarded by satisfaction beyond just following the rules as they adhere to higher principles even when no one is watching.

The approach of praise and rewards sounds great, but you will quickly hear from parents, in perhaps a sarcastic tone, "But what do I do if that doesn’t work?" Especially with younger children and those who are more intense, active, or negative by temperament, consequences are also needed to help socialize. The best consequences don’t come from parents at all. Natural consequences -– from biting the breast that ends the feeding to wearing shorts and getting cold – may be better remembered when no comments are added. Hard as it is not to say, "I told you so," silence or even sympathy helps the child feel that their parent is on their side while making it clear who chose the result.

Natural consequence are not always safe (think physical survival) nor are their effects always immediately evident, however. Children may not see that they are losing friends by tattling, for example (social survival). Part of the art of discipline is to figure out appropriate planned consequences that are prompt, logically related to the misbehavior, and of the right size, smaller being better. For infants, the main consequence of significance is loss of pleasure or interest, for example being removed from mom’s lap if they pull her hair. "I won’t let you hurt me" is the message optimally also delivered verbally and with some voiced emotion. Infants as young as 9 months can have their behavior altered by use of 15 seconds of time out – a combination of physical removal and loss of adult attention. Toddlers care about this, too, but most of all they don’t like the loss of freedom if they are restrained, made to sit, or grasped and silently taken to participate in the task, which I teach as "One request, then move."

From preschool on, loss of privileges is often the consequence most meaningfully related to offenses, such as the toy goes in time out if it is used in a dangerous way. Keeping "toy time out" short conveys confidence that the child can learn to do better and gives more opportunities for practice. The brief explanation that should go along with it – "You can’t play with this bat if you swing it near the breakable dishes" – also teaches the causal connection.

Teaching social survival skills should center on education about the child’s effects on others and the need to repair mistakes. Whenever possible, children who have made a mistake can give the other child an extra turn, compensate for a broken toy with one of their own, or work to earn money to pay for it. The apologies which are essential for social survival are better learned by the adult modeling them – "I am so sorry he hurt you" – rather than forced from a still angry child. Even preschool children and definitely older ones can be involved in the process of self-assessing appropriate consequences by being asked, "What do you think should happen as a result?"

Just as for rewards, immediate consequences are better, while they can still remember what they did and connect the deed to the result. Smaller is better here, too. Parents, even overly compassionate ones, are more likely to invoke a consequence and do it consistently, if it is small. Children punished too harshly remember feeling more hurt and angry than feeling sorry for their misdeed. Smaller consequences also help a child infer self-responsibility rather than dwelling on how mean their parent is. Parents are more willing to take this advice when they are reminded that teaching survival skills is the goal, not retribution.

What is effective for modeling, rewarding, and giving consequences depends on individual child temperament, past experiences that may numb or prime their reactions, and current privileges that may make them turn up their nose at a small reward. More importantly, how effective parents are as teachers of these life skills depends on their relationship with the child. A child will not regret losing attention or approval if there is none. Showing disappointment or anger when a child misbehaves may even backfire if the child is angry at the adult and wants to hurt them as they were hurt, for example in reaction to corporal punishment.

While typically developing children of all ages also respond to disapproval from their caregivers, there are some important disadvantages to using disapproval as a teaching tool even though it comes quite naturally to parents. Children are calmer, more observant, and more likely to model after and seek to please parents who show affection, acceptance, and positive regard for them. Shaming may stop a behavior and get a child to show remorse, but it undermines the power of the relationship for all the other teaching that is needed.

Perhaps the most universally accepted moral rule parents want to teach is the Golden One – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is really the key lesson for group survival and also for the survival task of being a socially acceptable/desirable social partner like finding a mate! Providing an explanation of social impact and not just a reward or a consequence helps teach the child the social principles they need to know. Including "I messages" about how the adult feels – "It makes me feel sad and like I can’t trust you when you take things that are not yours" – is far more instructive than "I have told you not to steal things!" Negative labels such as calling a child a thief, often an echo from the parent’s own experiences as a child, print a negative label in child’s mind that they may live down to, weakens their relationship with the parent by conveying a lack of acceptance, and shuts down their ability to listen to the lesson. This can be a hard reaction to change for some parents. A better alternative is to limit "scoldings" and try to begin them with a statement about the child’s core values before giving a consequence. An example might be saying, "I know you are a really good friend to Matt and want him to have fun when he comes over, but you didn’t follow the rule about football in the house, so he will have to go home now." Rather than apologize for giving a child consequences, a parent can express positive intent, for example saying, "I know you are a good person, and I am going to teach you not to do bad things so you and others will know that, too."

Over the years as parents teach children the survival rules we call discipline, they have the additional opportunity to teach some of the skills that contribute to personal well being and a happy life. They can teach self knowledge – "You get so excited that it is hard for you to wait but..."; elicit from them new strategies for self control – "What could you do differently next time?"; and promote self-compassion – "You are good at heart and learning every day. I am sure you will do better next time."

In providing discipline for children, as those moral icons the Rolling Stones reminded us, "You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need."

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Elsevier. E-mail her at [email protected].

One of the things I love about being a pediatrician is that I get to think about some of life’s deeper questions with the families under my care. How can we help him be kinder to his sister? Will she still love me if let her cry it out at bedtime? What can we do so that he knows the difference between right and wrong? Parents worry about these issues and are sometimes in conflict with each other, as well as with the habits they have from their own upbringing on what to do.

Fortunately, nature is on our side. Dr. Marc D. Hauser in his book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006) describes how biology determines what is experienced as right or wrong, predisposing humans to behaviors that not only promote their own survival but that of their social group as well. But broad biological forces don’t help with day-to-day child rearing decisions – or do they?

While most parents asking for our help with discipline say that the main thing they want is to "Stop him from being bad"; protecting the child from harm comes in the next breath, especially for younger children. When parents give an example of important discipline they are sure you will understand and endorse, it is most often a smack they deliver to keep the child from running into the street. This example is useful in conversations about discipline as it is actually a well-intentioned desire to teach the child life skills, personal survival being the first. The smack is effective, not because of its pain on the skin but rather because of the accompanying emotional scream of fear the parent delivers simultaneously, conveying that survival is at stake. "To teach" is the underlying origin of the word discipline, and teaching not only personal survival but also social survival should be the overarching goals.

What are some of the other life skills parents struggle to teach their charges in the ultimately short 18 years they get to do this? To wait your turn, to share, to clean up, to bathe regularly, to leave other people’s stuff alone, to tell the truth (and later to not always say it so bluntly). This reminds me of the Boy Scout law and also the ever-true quote "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten." How come this learning is attributed to kindergarten and not to the parents? Probably because the teaching in kindergarten is made completely clear, written on the board, reviewed every day, applied to everyone equally, and, in the best programs, made into a cheerful group game by a beloved teacher. All parents can aspire to and learn from these methods!

The best, and actually the easiest method of discipline, is establishing structure – otherwise called routines – just like kindergarten. When children experience a structure for the day – meals at the table, clean up after play, hand washing before eating, bedtimes with a book – they feel like a part of the family and derive meaning for their lives. With routines, children cease resisting even things they would prefer not to do, such as go to bed. Routines promote socialized behaviors in any environment, from palace to homeless shelter. The family is basically making clear the rules, saying, "Here is how we do it." Children are very interested in learning this and watch closely to see if this is how the grown-ups really behave. Having your actions match your words rather than being hypocritical is one of the ways having children makes us clean up our acts!

With young children, modeling the desired behavior is by far the best way to teach it. Actually, that applies at all ages and, even though ’tweens and teens will moan, they are still watching. Kindness to siblings, forgiveness for lapses, restraining anger when frustrated, pitching in to clean up, and persistence on difficult tasks are desired behaviors that are somewhat hard to describe. Of course, the opposite is also true – demonstrating angry, out-of-control behaviors has an even bigger impact, as they are often associated with high dramatic emotion that puts a special mark on them in the child’s memory. "You reap what you sow" applies well to parent modeling.

Not all desired behaviors can be taught by modeling, however. It is a slow method and also depends on a child’s interest in and ability to copy. With the drive for autonomy, children may even do the opposite of what they see done! The best way to teach a desired behavior when it is complicated or not being picked up by observation includes saying exactly and simply what is wanted – "Please pick up your jacket"– and providing immediate reinforcement of approximations of the desired behavior. Younger children learn best with concrete rewards – a sticker, a trinket, or a pat on the head with a description of what they did that was good and a happy smile. Using smaller rewards helps even stingy parents reward every time they should, and keep the child from having tantrums over huge prizes they crave but have not yet earned. Larger rewards or consequences actually have been shown to reduce a child’s sense of responsibility for a behavior, presumably as they justify their compliance as intended solely to get the prize. Gradually, praise suffices. Praise is still best when it includes a specific description of the steps accomplished – "Good job finding so many of your toys" – and including the social value – "It makes me feel proud that you are getting to be a good helper".

The next step up in reinforcement is to elicit self-praise to encourage ownership of positive acts. When a child completes his homework a parent might ask, "How do you think you did today?" In the end, one hopes that youth (and adults) are rewarded by satisfaction beyond just following the rules as they adhere to higher principles even when no one is watching.

The approach of praise and rewards sounds great, but you will quickly hear from parents, in perhaps a sarcastic tone, "But what do I do if that doesn’t work?" Especially with younger children and those who are more intense, active, or negative by temperament, consequences are also needed to help socialize. The best consequences don’t come from parents at all. Natural consequences -– from biting the breast that ends the feeding to wearing shorts and getting cold – may be better remembered when no comments are added. Hard as it is not to say, "I told you so," silence or even sympathy helps the child feel that their parent is on their side while making it clear who chose the result.

Natural consequence are not always safe (think physical survival) nor are their effects always immediately evident, however. Children may not see that they are losing friends by tattling, for example (social survival). Part of the art of discipline is to figure out appropriate planned consequences that are prompt, logically related to the misbehavior, and of the right size, smaller being better. For infants, the main consequence of significance is loss of pleasure or interest, for example being removed from mom’s lap if they pull her hair. "I won’t let you hurt me" is the message optimally also delivered verbally and with some voiced emotion. Infants as young as 9 months can have their behavior altered by use of 15 seconds of time out – a combination of physical removal and loss of adult attention. Toddlers care about this, too, but most of all they don’t like the loss of freedom if they are restrained, made to sit, or grasped and silently taken to participate in the task, which I teach as "One request, then move."

From preschool on, loss of privileges is often the consequence most meaningfully related to offenses, such as the toy goes in time out if it is used in a dangerous way. Keeping "toy time out" short conveys confidence that the child can learn to do better and gives more opportunities for practice. The brief explanation that should go along with it – "You can’t play with this bat if you swing it near the breakable dishes" – also teaches the causal connection.

Teaching social survival skills should center on education about the child’s effects on others and the need to repair mistakes. Whenever possible, children who have made a mistake can give the other child an extra turn, compensate for a broken toy with one of their own, or work to earn money to pay for it. The apologies which are essential for social survival are better learned by the adult modeling them – "I am so sorry he hurt you" – rather than forced from a still angry child. Even preschool children and definitely older ones can be involved in the process of self-assessing appropriate consequences by being asked, "What do you think should happen as a result?"

Just as for rewards, immediate consequences are better, while they can still remember what they did and connect the deed to the result. Smaller is better here, too. Parents, even overly compassionate ones, are more likely to invoke a consequence and do it consistently, if it is small. Children punished too harshly remember feeling more hurt and angry than feeling sorry for their misdeed. Smaller consequences also help a child infer self-responsibility rather than dwelling on how mean their parent is. Parents are more willing to take this advice when they are reminded that teaching survival skills is the goal, not retribution.

What is effective for modeling, rewarding, and giving consequences depends on individual child temperament, past experiences that may numb or prime their reactions, and current privileges that may make them turn up their nose at a small reward. More importantly, how effective parents are as teachers of these life skills depends on their relationship with the child. A child will not regret losing attention or approval if there is none. Showing disappointment or anger when a child misbehaves may even backfire if the child is angry at the adult and wants to hurt them as they were hurt, for example in reaction to corporal punishment.

While typically developing children of all ages also respond to disapproval from their caregivers, there are some important disadvantages to using disapproval as a teaching tool even though it comes quite naturally to parents. Children are calmer, more observant, and more likely to model after and seek to please parents who show affection, acceptance, and positive regard for them. Shaming may stop a behavior and get a child to show remorse, but it undermines the power of the relationship for all the other teaching that is needed.

Perhaps the most universally accepted moral rule parents want to teach is the Golden One – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is really the key lesson for group survival and also for the survival task of being a socially acceptable/desirable social partner like finding a mate! Providing an explanation of social impact and not just a reward or a consequence helps teach the child the social principles they need to know. Including "I messages" about how the adult feels – "It makes me feel sad and like I can’t trust you when you take things that are not yours" – is far more instructive than "I have told you not to steal things!" Negative labels such as calling a child a thief, often an echo from the parent’s own experiences as a child, print a negative label in child’s mind that they may live down to, weakens their relationship with the parent by conveying a lack of acceptance, and shuts down their ability to listen to the lesson. This can be a hard reaction to change for some parents. A better alternative is to limit "scoldings" and try to begin them with a statement about the child’s core values before giving a consequence. An example might be saying, "I know you are a really good friend to Matt and want him to have fun when he comes over, but you didn’t follow the rule about football in the house, so he will have to go home now." Rather than apologize for giving a child consequences, a parent can express positive intent, for example saying, "I know you are a good person, and I am going to teach you not to do bad things so you and others will know that, too."

Over the years as parents teach children the survival rules we call discipline, they have the additional opportunity to teach some of the skills that contribute to personal well being and a happy life. They can teach self knowledge – "You get so excited that it is hard for you to wait but..."; elicit from them new strategies for self control – "What could you do differently next time?"; and promote self-compassion – "You are good at heart and learning every day. I am sure you will do better next time."

In providing discipline for children, as those moral icons the Rolling Stones reminded us, "You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need."

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to Elsevier. E-mail her at [email protected].