Distinction Between Info On Consequences vs Threats?

[jandjmommy]

[Posting in this thread as I'm still struggling with this issue; please remove duplicate post in GD2]

I've read lots of books, so forgive me if I'm mixing up the specifics here.
In books like Love and Logic they suggest letting the kid make a mistake, then later presenting the consequence -- for example, the kid didn't get off the computer, so the next time he asks to use it you say you didn't like having to force him off, so no. Or, kid smarts off then asks to go for ice cream later and you say you didn't like how he talked to you before, so no.
This feels vengeful and passive aggressive to me, so I avoid it.

I like the alternative in books like Positive Discipline that suggest you give the ground rules up front -- example, You need to get off the computer in 5 minutes. If you can't get off when it's time, you won't be able to use it again today. What is your understanding of our agreement? (or, what is your understanding of what I just told you? if they weren't part of coming up with the agreement.)
My problem is, how do I explain potential consequences without it being a threat? Or am I not understanding the process correctly? Does it just come down to my attitude? Is there a fool proof script that avoids threatening but offers information on potential consequences? ("Fool proof" may be wishful thinking!) And under what circumstances do you inform about potential consequences? -- I want to set them up for success instead of building possible failure into everything by constantly saying if you mess up, then this will happen.
Thanks!

[Sparrow]

For me its delivery.

"Get off that computer NOW, or you won't be using it the next time you ask"

"Bear, remember the rule. If you don't get off the computer when I ask, you may not use it the next time you ask"

I think it helps to have consistent rules, like the computer one. That is a rule in our house and it applies to all screens.

If their behaviour is less desirable and you've eliminated all causes that may not be their fault (thinks HALT) and their being monkeys for the sake of being monkeys (because that happens) there is The Family gets best, or no one gets the rest) rule.

You can remind them of the rules too, especially little ones.

[bolt.]

I don't think the distinction is in the words/script. It's in the tone, body language and intent.

Think of the way you say a 'good' if/then: "If the ice cream store is open, we'll stop for a treat. If it's not, we won't be able to get one. I sure hope doesn't close until 9:00." -- Listen to yourself saying that: think about your tone, body language and intent. You imply both regret (if it is closed) and hope (that it will be open). You acknowledge that either thing might happen, and that the choice is out of your hands.

Try using that exact tone, body language and intent to say, "If you get off the computer within 5 minutes, you will keep your screen-time privilidges. If you don't you will be loosing a privilidge. I bet you're going to make the smart choice!"

[Heather Micaela]

well said bolt :yes

And I agree that L&L squicks me out for the PA tone too. My otherwise kind friend seemed cruel when she was attempting to follow that book :no

I think everyone needs to know the rules of the home and what is expected of them. There does not always need to be a stated consequence because you could be still setting up a punishment system, but at the very least a child needs to know what to do. Then when they are about to NOT follow them, give them the chance to comply and (like bolt said) show them what the natural conseqences will be if they do not. It may be a simple as they ran out of time to do the next thing they really wanted to do.

[jandjmommy]

I don't think the distinction is in the words/script. It's in the tone, body language and intent.

Think of the way you say a 'good' if/then: "If the ice cream store is open, we'll stop for a treat. If it's not, we won't be able to get one. I sure hope doesn't close until 9:00." -- Listen to yourself saying that: think about your tone, body language and intent. You imply both regret (if it is closed) and hope (that it will be open). You acknowledge that either thing might happen, and that the choice is out of your hands.

Try using that exact tone, body language and intent to say, "If you get off the computer within 5 minutes, you will keep your screen-time privilidges. If you don't you will be loosing a privilidge. I bet you're going to make the smart choice!"

I really like your ice cream example! Usually I feel like a syrupy dork trying to get my point across nicely. Your script is just how I would talk about a regular issue -- I need to transfer that to parenting!
I am at a loss though with the tons of things they want to do, need to start/stop, cooperating, etc. (read: everything!) Do I explain what needs to happen/what will happen for each thing each time (Kids are newly 5 and 7.5)? I feel like, even with the better script, that's going to push us toward negativity with the constant if this/then that. How to avoid being naggy?

[DancingWithElves]

yes, and that's important. you want to be nice about, not barking a threat. but at the same time, i hear this a lot irl, mothers sugar coat it until the point is no longer clear :doh

"oh honey, but if you don't, i''ll feel _______, and daddy said that _________, you could __________, but if you do then _____________, i'd really prefer that you don't"
:crazy anyone would get confused with :up statement.

so, be clear, be concise, keep it simple, but still be nice about it.

[Rabbit]

My children's conversations with each other have made it clear that I am doing it wrong. My consequences are logical and clear, and communicated ahead of time, but is becoming apparent that "You'll do it, or I'll punch you!" is how they're hearing it. I think I'm in too big of a hurry.

[L-Boogie]

:cup

[ArmsOfLove]

it's script and tone and other things depending on the child(ren) involved :)

First, threats are often made up in the moment. They are also used to manipulate behavior.

Consequences are (according to Jane Nelson) related, relevant, respectful and helpful for preventing the problem in the future. This involves thought and planning.

What is the motivation for stating the consequence? is it to force cooperation? or is it to empower the child to make a decision they are ready to make? if they aren't ready to make the decision then there shouldn't be the option of choosing poorly.

I can't think straight as I'm tired but I'll try to come back :)

[curlymopmom]

:cup I have been dwelling on how much my tone affects my children, especially super-sensitive dd. This is timely. :)

[jandjmommy]

it's script and tone and other things depending on the child(ren) involved :)

First, threats are often made up in the moment. They are also used to manipulate behavior.

Consequences are (according to Jane Nelson) related, relevant, respectful and helpful for preventing the problem in the future. This involves thought and planning.

What is the motivation for stating the consequence? is it to force cooperation? or is it to empower the child to make a decision they are ready to make? if they aren't ready to make the decision then there shouldn't be the option of choosing poorly.

I can't think straight as I'm tired but I'll try to come back :)

"Thought and planning" -- that's a struggle. I realize that when I do take time to think about why I'm stating the potential consequence, I don't often state one at all because I realize that I want them to do what I want when I want them to, and the "consequence" is a punishment, plain and simple.
I need to write Related Relevant Respectful Helpful on the back of my hand!