Logical consequence?

[Amythestmama]

I recently read a parenting book that while I didn't agree with all of what was written, did challenge me to be consistant with what I do about misbehavior. So far its been working well for us.
I have a question though. I told all three older kids that they had to eat 3 chicken 'fingers' at supper in order to get ice cream for dessert and they all eagerly said OK. M ate 3, K ate 4 but J only ate 2. So M & K got ice cream and J did not. I felt bad that he didn't get his dessert b/c he was looking forward to it. But yet I'm tired of feeding him supper only to have him pick at it and only want ice cream/sweets and then later on be fussy b/c he didn't eat enough supper and then pick thru the fridge eating or whining when I refuse sweets when he should be going to bed. So was that a reasonable requirement and consequence? He did cry about it. I reminded him of the agreement and even told him that if he'd come back and finish his supper, he could still get the ice cream. He refused and just sat on the couch and cried.

[jojola]

It seems like a reasonable requirement to me :)

I think it's great that you leave it open for him to come back and finish if he wants the ice cream. I do that here all the time.

[ArmsOfLove]

logical consequences are tricky. there is a place for them, but children who don't even have prelogic (those under 8) don't learn from them--it just is another brand of punishment. Jane Nelson talks instead about Solutions and suggests that they need to be related, relevant, respectful and helpful for preventing the problem in the future. If you measure the consequence against those 4 things how effective would you consider it and can you come up with something that might fit better?

[jojola]

logical consequences are tricky. there is a place for them, but children who don't even have prelogic (those under 8) don't learn from them--it just is another brand of punishment. Jane Nelson talks instead about Solutions and suggests that they need to be related, relevant, respectful and helpful for preventing the problem in the future. If you measure the consequence against those 4 things how effective would you consider it and can you come up with something that might fit better?

I'm surprised to hear you say that... I always thought that eating food with nutritional value before "fluff" foods was related, it seems quite natural to me. My kids (9 and 6yo) know all about filling up the gas tank with real food before treats. I've even heard them tell my neighbour that they'll put the cookies she gave them aside until after dinner for that reason. I don't see it as punishment, particularly because I make sure any special treat is put aside until the next meal if they don't get it that time. How do you see it differently?

[shaslove]

:popcorn I am also interested in what you have to say ArmsofLove.

[Striving4Grace]

:popcorn Me too! Oh Crystal....yoooo hoooo.....:giggle

[ArmsOfLove]

I'm surprised to hear you say that... I always thought that eating food with nutritional value before "fluff" foods was related, it seems quite natural to me. My kids (9 and 6yo) know all about filling up the gas tank with real food before treats. I've even heard them tell my neighbour that they'll put the cookies she gave them aside until after dinner for that reason. I don't see it as punishment, particularly because I make sure any special treat is put aside until the next meal if they don't get it that time. How do you see it differently?

First of all, you have to look at the ages of the OP's children. 6 and 9 is much different. Many 6yo's get the simple if/then enough to understand this and 9 is a reasonable age for solutions/consequences.

No one has a right to fluff food. We don't even keep it in our home though we do occassionaly make treats. Have healthy desserts or no desserts and make them part of dinner. It's punitive to dangle cake in front of a child who is 5 or under and manipulate them to eat a certain amount of a food they may or may not like in order to win the reward of treats.

If you hold out "rewards" for certain behavior and "withhold" them for non compliance then you're still operating from a punitive dynamic.

The way I do it is even healthy treats are not something anyone is guaranteed. If everyone fusses about dinner then I'm certainly not going to pull out treats. And we're a team so if one of us loses we all lose so if someone is melting down about dinner I'm still not pulling out and even offering treats. If it's a special day or everyone is in a good place and someone asks for a treat then :shrug3 Sure, why not. But it's not guaranteed and it's not earned.

[gardenfreshmama]

:popcorn

Okay... lets think about it then in those terms, because I'd like to process it further, too!

Was the consequence related? I would say so... both the "misbehavior" (and I use that word loosely in this situaion) and the consequence have to do with food.

Relevant? Again, I think so... dessert after supper is a family rule, and the "rule" has value to you, for many reasons. You want your children to grow up knowing that junk food has it's place, but it's not valued above healthier foods. There are reasons we don't let our children eat nothing but sweets/junk.

Respectful? Well, I didn't see it, obviously, so I don't know if you handled it respectfully. I know for myself it could go either way. But, yes, I believe this COULD certainly be handled in a respectful manner.

Helpful for preventing it in the future? Hmmm. I don't know about that... especially if it's true that children aren't developmentally there yet to understand logical consequences. So this could be the hang-up. But I don't know WHAT would be helpful for preventing it in the future, if that's the case.

Other possible solutions (just brainstorming):
*Don't offer dessert as a "treat" for eating well at dinner. Ice cream could be a "middle-of-the-day" snack, and available to everyone. Dinner is just dinner, and it is expected to be eaten.
*No "grazing" allowed after supper, especially if the supper was not eaten. Only the original supper, or healthy alternatives (that you know the child likes) are offered as choices.

That's all i've got for now:) I don't think your consequence was punitive, by any means! :heart

[MarynMunchkins]

This was your almost 4 yo?

Generally, I find it easier to give less dessert for less food, rather than taking it away entirely. I think no dessert while his siblings get some is a hard moment for someone that young.

[Atarah]

For *some* people, requiring XYZ amount of food be eaten before desert is offered is setting them up to over eat. Some will force themselves to eat when they are no longer hungry just to get the 'reward' food at the end. I don't think this is a 'healthy' lifelong habit to set up.

I think the suggestions given by AOL, Lynsey, and Mary are :tu

You could try them all and see how they each play out in your family. :grin

[teamommy]

ITA with Crystal. I don't think of logical consequences being appropriate for a 3 year old.

I see it for all of the kids as more of a punishment. You offered to reward them with ice cream for eating a certain amount. When you take away the reward, it is like a punishment.

I would suggest that using sweets as a reward for many children may have harmful effects in the long run. I know that is a different issue, but it relates to possible solutions.

[Kiara.I]

I try to avoid making food a battleground. To offer something you know they will want, on conditions, is bribery. *You* want him to eat a certain number of chicken fingers. What if he doesn't? What if he's not hungry?

Look at it this way:
You don't want him whining for sweets/fluff later. You want him not to eat excessive amounts of sweets. Okay. Offer dinner. Offer dessert. If he's hungry later, he gets more dinner. (Or equivalent useful food). Not more fluff. Does it really matter whether he eats chicken-chicken-icecream, or whether it looks like chicken-icecream-chicken? If you're willing to have him eat some portion of ice cream, then it doesn't really matter whether it comes before or after other food. If you feel it will fill him up, then he didn't have room for it in the first place and it shouldn't be offered at all.

What ideals are you really trying to accomplish? How can you set everyone up to succeed at them?

[jojola]

It's punitive to dangle cake in front of a child who is 5 or under and manipulate them to eat a certain amount of a food they may or may not like in order to win the reward of treats.
If you hold out "rewards" for certain behavior and "withhold" them for non compliance then you're still operating from a punitive dynamic.


I think I see what you mean.

There are so many things that seem borderline to me, I get confused sometimes. For instance, my dh9 hates doing homework... I'll often set it up so that we can do something fun once he's done, but if he doesn't get it done, we don't have time for the badminton game or walk to the park. I am certainly using it as leverage to get the homework done, because the natural consequence of not getting homework done (he does poorly in school) doesn't matter to him. So it's based on whether or not the homework gets done, but it's logical because if homework isn't done by suppertime, there really isn't any time left for badminton.

Thoughts??

[ArmsOfLove]

at the age of 9 it's a different situation. He has early logic and the reality is that he isn't doing X until Y is done. As soon as Y is finished we can do X. I might even matter of factly state that with my children about dessert if it wasn't an issue--just matter of factly. "Okay, here's dinner. When we're all finished eating a good dinner we'll have dessert." Just matter of factly--no threat, no manipulation, just simple and orderly.

[jojola]

at the age of 9 it's a different situation. He has early logic and the reality is that he isn't doing X until Y is done. As soon as Y is finished we can do X. I might even matter of factly state that with my children about dessert if it wasn't an issue--just matter of factly. "Okay, here's dinner. When we're all finished eating a good dinner we'll have dessert." Just matter of factly--no threat, no manipulation, just simple and orderly.

Ah, so the age is really significant. I find that my 6yo (who seems mature for his age) also has no problem with this, and seems to understand the concept well.

So what do you do if one of your kids doesn't eat a "good dinner?" How would that response look to a 9yo, and then to a 4yo?

[mokamoto]

This explains a lot to me w/ regard to how I felt being consistent on this consequence. Thank you for explaining the punitive basis for this example. Logically it seemed right, but it felt wrong to my mama heart. :heart

First of all, you have to look at the ages of the OP's children. 6 and 9 is much different. Many 6yo's get the simple if/then enough to understand this and 9 is a reasonable age for solutions/consequences.

No one has a right to fluff food. We don't even keep it in our home though we do occassionaly make treats. Have healthy desserts or no desserts and make them part of dinner. It's punitive to dangle cake in front of a child who is 5 or under and manipulate them to eat a certain amount of a food they may or may not like in order to win the reward of treats.

If you hold out "rewards" for certain behavior and "withhold" them for non compliance then you're still operating from a punitive dynamic.

The way I do it is even healthy treats are not something anyone is guaranteed. If everyone fusses about dinner then I'm certainly not going to pull out treats. And we're a team so if one of us loses we all lose so if someone is melting down about dinner I'm still not pulling out and even offering treats. If it's a special day or everyone is in a good place and someone asks for a treat then :shrug3 Sure, why not. But it's not guaranteed and it's not earned.

[ArmsOfLove]

Ah, so the age is really significant. I find that my 6yo (who seems mature for his age) also has no problem with this, and seems to understand the concept well.

So what do you do if one of your kids doesn't eat a "good dinner?" How would that response look to a 9yo, and then to a 4yo?

If I've already decided that we're having a dessert then I would encouragef a few more bites from a 4yo, tell a 9yo "Are you kidding me? Seriously? That's a good dinner?" and I'd adjust the portion appropriately. If the child is still hungry after the dessert they can have more dinner :tu

[jojola]

If I've already decided that we're having a dessert then I would encouragef a few more bites from a 4yo, tell a 9yo "Are you kidding me? Seriously? That's a good dinner?" and I'd adjust the portion appropriately. If the child is still hungry after the dessert they can have more dinner :tu

Ah! I see. Now I've faced that situation before, and my kids will refuse to eat more. When you've encouraged the 4yo to eat a few more bites, or you've adjusted portions, what do you do if they don't eat then? Is there ever a point that they don't get the dessert if they want it?

The best solution for me is that I don't offer dessert that I feel is nutritionally void. That way, if they're eating baked apples instead of sliced oranges, I'm :shrug3 about it. However, my dh often comes home with what I consider "junk". I don't want to see them leave rice and curry on their plates while they plough through a bag of Oreos. Sometimes I've just limited the cookies "okay, one oreo, if you're still hungry there's more rice". Is there a better choice in that situation?

Thanks for talking this all through. So many questions, so little on-line time....

[Tasmanian Saint]

:cup

[MarynMunchkins]

I think one Oreo and then going back to dinner is very reasonable. :yes

[MomtoJGJ]

We adjust the amount of dinner based on age (and recent food behavior) too.... to me 3 chicken fingers for an almost 4yo is a LOT... I probably would have required DD3 to eat 1, DD2 to eat 2 and DD1 to eat 3, depending on their current eating habits and if they had something healthy just before the meal too, like if they've eaten a ton of raw veggies or some fruit....

[shaslove]

See, I know my 5 yr old will eat a lot normally, even if i dont offer dessert. But if I offer dessert, she will try to tell me she is full, so I said, "Well, if you are full, you are too full for dessert". Is that punitive?

[Maggie]

Thanks for the input, Crystal! ITA.

[jandjmommy]

I think what you did is fine. Especially as you offered to give him the ice cream if he'd come eat the rest of his chicken.
I've been letting DKs (6 & 3) eat just what they want (after at least 1 taste of each food offered), but later if they're wanting a treat I just give them their dinner again; when they've eaten a good portion of it (maybe 1 Tbsp is a portion for 3 year old, but I know 6 yr old can eat 3 Tbsp) then they can move on to dessert.
Love the pp that pointed out that treats are not a right!
If I cooked something experimental and they did try it but did not enjoy it they can have raw fruit/veggies, then a treat.