Comments on: Positive Disciplining

By: jay

jay — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:46:16 +0000

Yikes! What confusion! … there’s really nothing you can say to your child, is there. But you’re all missing the big point – the kid should not be getting a soda!! If it’s mealtime, the child should be hungry, washed and ready to eat… if it’s not mealtime and he’s thirsty – give him a glass of tap water full of minerals and non-staining to the floor.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:07:21 +0000

Ellen, your ideas for eliciting the desired behavior are commonly used by successful influencers. I felt a strong reaction to Karen’s suggestion to use “I’m worried that if you are moving in your seat that the soda will spill, is there a different way you can sit in your seat?”

First, you are setting yourself up by telling the child you are worried. S/he doesn’t need to have *your* worry, and if this is a manipulative child, s/he may use that information to further control the situation. Also, by phrasing in this way, you are actually implanting the idea to spill the soda – which I’m sure is not the intent!

Ellen’s suggestion offers both her preference and a positive consequence for the child. It does not set up a conflict and it does not create a power struggle. It’s very clear and precise. If the child doesn’t want the soda then s/he won’t comply, but the non-compliance won’t be as a result of threats, it will be as a result of his/her preferences. So it’s not likely to be an angry response – unless the child has been repeatedly subjected to the negative frame (“if you don’t….then I won’t).

I do like Karen’s question about the possibility of there being a different way of sitting in the seat. Perhaps that could be combined with something that acknowledges the child’s activity or desire for movement. “You seem very excited right now. Can you think of a different way to sit in your seat to make sure the glass of soda stays safely on the table?”

We want to make sure we frame our statements to children in the direction of what we *want* them to do, rather in the direction of what we *do not want* them to do. Reframing our statement allows the child to think of ways to create the positive result we would all prefer.

By: anita mohan

anita mohan — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:37:20 +0000

dear ellen,
i’m sure ur advice would make a positive impact
in my relationship with my son. I’m striving to be a better mom.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:14:46 +0000

I like that. I feel helpless at this point to change the way I do things. But I am going to try to slow down and give my words more thought. Thank you.

By: Ellen C. Braun

Ellen C. Braun — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:23:56 +0000

Hi Karen,

I appreciate your comment, and love the termonology “loving guidance”- yet sometimes little souls DO need to be lovingly controlled! I suppose that it depends on the child’s disposition and age… let’s all LOVINGLY find the method that works best for our children.

What would you do if your child was sitting precariously on the edge of his seat and responded, “Nah, the soda won’t spill”? In this particular situation I did not want to give him a choice about sitting straight or not- I needed him to switch to a safer position… let’s assume the cleaning woman just shined the floor, or we were guests in an immaculate home:)

By: Karen Griffiths

Karen Griffiths — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:20:37 +0000

I’d like to say that there is a better way, both ways you describe are controlling, eventually it will backfire on the parent when the child is too big to be controlled. Loving guidance is a way of guiding our children without controlling their behavior, it is about instilling a sense of internal motivation. In this situation Mom could say, “I’m worried that if you are moving in your seat that the soda will spill, is there a different way you can sit in your seat?” That way you do not associate toys/behavior/food in the childs mind. The child changes their position in the seat because you keep the issue about the soda spilling.

Best,
Karen Griffiths