Lesson Six: What To Do When …

<–Back | Forward–>

Chapter 2

Responding to Misbehavior

“If you punish a child for being naughty, and reward him for being good, he will do right merely for the sake of the reward; and when he goes out into the real world and finds that goodness is not always rewarded nor wickedness always punished, he will grow into a man who always thinks about how he will get on in the world, and does the right or wrong thing according as he finds of advantage to himself.”
—Immanuel Kant

If your child is engaging in misbehavior that is not dangerous or destructive, you may respond in a number of ways. Your options range from doing nothing and allowing the situation to reach its natural conclusion, to intervening and stopping the behavior.

To analyze your various options, let’s look at a specific situation. Suppose you have a daughter named Stacey. She and her friend from next door are fighting over a toy. The behavior isn't endangering either child, and the behavior is not destructive. (Of course, if the toy in question is a $300 computer game, the destructive rule would apply.)  Let’s say, since I like ducks, the toy in dispute is a duck. Depending on your home discipline plan, Stacey may or may not be breaking a rule. There are a number of different actions you could take. Let’s examine each of them.

Situation 1 (Rule in place): There is a rule in place that states, if Stacey plays quietly and shares her toys, she can have friends over to play.

Option 1 (Rule in place): You could intervene, stop the fighting, and send the friend home. You could tell Stacey that she chose not to share her toys, and therefore she will not be able to have a friend over the next day, or two days, or whatever the rule stated. This approach is okay, but for Stacey it will feel like punishment because you sent the friend home. Many times, it is not what is done; it is also when and how it is done that makes a big difference.

Option 2 (Rule in place): You could do nothing and let the situation play itself out. If the toy is broken in the course of the fighting, the natural negative outcome is set. The child learns that a result of fighting over a toy can be the loss of that toy. Now, if you jump in to save Stacey and say something like, “Now you see what can happen, but don’t cry, because I’ll buy you another toy,” you are not going to teach her anything about responsibility. Children learn from being allowed to experience a negative outcome. If the toy is not broken, then after the friend goes home, you could sit down and talk with Stacey about what happened, the choice she made, and the consequence that she will not be able to have a friend over for whatever time was set. By not intervening and by not saving Stacey, you teach her an important lesson about responsibility.

Situation 2 (No rule in place): If there is no specific rule about sharing, you have another set of options.

Option 1 (No rule in place): You could intervene and offer a solution. You could stop the fighting and suggest that Stacey play with the toy for ten minutes and then let the friend have it for ten minutes. This is not a desirable option, because it deprives the child of a learning opportunity. While the solution that you present might be fair, it teaches children to look to others to solve their problems.

Option 2 (No rule in place): You could enforce a new surprise rule. For instance, you could intervene, stop the fighting, and say to Stacey, “If you cannot share your toys, then you cannot have friends over to play.” There are two things wrong with this. First, you are enforcing a surprise rule that Stacey did not agree to. Second, while the consequence you are imposing is logical (i.e., if you can’t share, you can't have friends over to play), it is still punishment. It is punishment because it is something you are imposing. It is not an outcome that the child knew about. And even though the consequence may seem quite logical to you, your child will see it as arbitrary because it was not explained ahead of time. The only thing Stacey is likely to learn from this approach is to be sure you are not around the next time she decides not to share a toy.

Option 3 (No rule in place): You could intervene and create a new rule. This is a better option than intervening and imposing a consequence. In this case, you would stop the fighting and ask Stacey and her friend what type of rule there could be so that they could both play with the toy. Involving the children in finding a solution is much preferable than solving the problem for them. Help them decide on the rule and the positive outcome that will result. Then ask them if that rule is okay with them. It will be because they had a hand in creating it. Asking for their agreement also confirms their commitment to following the rule. This is a good approach to solving the problem, and it teaches responsibility.

Option 4 (No rule in place): You could do nothing and let the children deal with the situation themselves. They may find a solution, or one child will win and the other lose, or they may break the toy. If they do not find a solution, you may want to take this as a learning opportunity and talk with your child about it. Helping children explore alternative ways of behaving teaches them that they have control over their own behavior. This is also a very proactive option in that you are taking a step toward preventing the problem in the future.

From the above discussion of different situations and options, it is obvious that there is no single simple answer that applies to all situations. There are many ways that you can respond to your child’s misbehavior. Some choices teach more about responsibility than others. However you choose to respond, you will be helping your child if you keep two general rules in mind: (1) Don’t punish, and (2) help the child learn alternative ways to behave in the future. In later chapters, you will learn more about responding to misbehavior, when we examine specific discipline problems.

<–Back | Forward–>