In evidence-based parenting, the reason for pretending to ignore in response to unwanted behavior is that adult attention is a positive reinforcer. It has nothing to do with authority or feelings about interference. It has everything to do with what works.
The research indicates that the best approach is to direct attention to wanted behavior and away from any harmless unwanted behavior that can be ignored.
The strategy of signaling that you notice, smiling at, gamifying, in response to unwanted behavior is grossly counterproductive.
The research indicates that the best approach is to direct attention to wanted behavior and away from any harmless unwanted behavior that can be ignored.
This is actually the strategy my parents applied a lot (I observed that on my younger siblings). On problematic issues distract from it by supplying something entirely else and focussing attention on that. But it made me feel uneasy because it didn’t (seem to) address the real issue. It looked like an easy way out. It did work but it also cost quite some time each time.
The strategy of signaling that you notice, smiling at, gamifying, in response to unwanted behavior is grossly counterproductive.
This is valuable advice. Thank you.
But the point still stands: If the children notice that you intentionally condoned than you relativize your consequence. You can only do this if a) you accept this lenience or b) are sure that the (small) child will not notice. And if the act is indeed harmless.
On the other hand one can nonetheless signal in a mild form that you noticed in really harmless cases.
(how do I make those bars on the right indicating what I am replying to?)
“But it made me feel uneasy because it didn’t (seem to) address the real issue. It looked like an easy way out. It did work but it also cost quite some time each time.”
You can always address the real issue at some other time. The key is merely short-term timing, you don’t want to react immediately in a way that reinforces the unwanted behavior with attention. Later, when the kid is not engaging in unwanted behavior your can address the real issue for hours on end if you want. Often the best way to address the real issue is to immediately react to the behavior that is the opposite of the unwanted behavior by having a long conversation about why the opposite is so good and commendable. Or, better yet sometimes, immediately ask the kid why he/she engaged in the good behavior and get them to tell you why they think it is good and all that. Kids love to have their parents listen to them, its a great social reward for wanted behavior.
“But the point still stands: If the children notice that you intentionally condoned than you relativize your consequence. You can only do this if a) you accept this lenience or b) are sure that the (small) child will not notice. And if the act is indeed harmless.”
You are pretending to ignore. You are not condoning anything. The consequence is no attention. You are engaging in behavior shaping, notions like ’condoning” and “lenience” are not really categories in the behavior shaping process. Skillful behavior shaping is just the fastest way to accomplish lasting change according to the evidence. I my book, the fastest way to accomplish effective change is the direct opposite of condoning and lenience. I know this is not the way most parents think, but, in my opinion, it is the way to think. It does not matter if they notice it, the research shows it works whether they notice it or not.
Non-harmless unwanted behavior is a different matter, aggressive or significantly destructive behavior, it cannot be addressed by pretending to ignore. Redirection sometimes works. As a final resort use time-out, but most parents have no idea how to use time out. Time out is not a punishment, its just time-out from reinforcement. You can teach your kid to set in time out and reward them for executing a good time out. You can get the kid to practice time outs in advance of using it. Research show that time out works even if you award, praise, commend the kid for executing a good time out.
Parents tend to start the time out process with explanations. Explanations and face-time are time-in which is the opposite of time-out. Time-in, of course, tends to have the opposite effect of making the unwanted behavior more likely.
Parents tend to threaten time-out. Threatening time-out is time-in. Avoid threatening time-out.
When a time out is warranted, immediately initiate it with little or no talking and avoid looking at the kid. If you need to explain, say something short like “no biting”. One minute per year of age is a good guideline for the length of time-out.
Also there are some gamification methods. Say a kid is doing head-banging tantrums or otherwise self-destructive or property-destructive tantrums. You can play a pretend game where the kid engages in “good” tantrums and you give him positive attention for “good” tantrums. Via this process instill the habit of good tantrums that can be ignored. Pretend games are a good way to trigger a wanted behavior that is not otherwise occurring so that you can start reinforcing this behavior.
Anyway this is advanced stuff, I refer you to the books of Alan Kazdin.
PS: You will probably find that it is easy to talk about why bad behavior is bad, but harder to come up with a long monologue or even a bunch of short comments about why specific good behaviors are good. It’s worth working on this.
I focused on behaviorism, but I just wanted to mention that The Incredible Years is a good evidence-based book that is not based soly in behaviorism. Kazdin’s are the best books on behaviorism as applied to parenting. Incredible Years integrates a bunch of methods including behaviorism.
Here’s a neat pictorial outline of the Incredible Years Program:
In evidence-based parenting, the reason for pretending to ignore in response to unwanted behavior is that adult attention is a positive reinforcer. It has nothing to do with authority or feelings about interference. It has everything to do with what works.
The research indicates that the best approach is to direct attention to wanted behavior and away from any harmless unwanted behavior that can be ignored.
The strategy of signaling that you notice, smiling at, gamifying, in response to unwanted behavior is grossly counterproductive.
See:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2008/04/tiny_tyrants.2.html
http://epicurusgarden.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-reinforcing-power-of-adult.html
This is actually the strategy my parents applied a lot (I observed that on my younger siblings). On problematic issues distract from it by supplying something entirely else and focussing attention on that. But it made me feel uneasy because it didn’t (seem to) address the real issue. It looked like an easy way out. It did work but it also cost quite some time each time.
This is valuable advice. Thank you.
But the point still stands: If the children notice that you intentionally condoned than you relativize your consequence. You can only do this if a) you accept this lenience or b) are sure that the (small) child will not notice. And if the act is indeed harmless.
On the other hand one can nonetheless signal in a mild form that you noticed in really harmless cases.
I will not gamify anymore though.
(how do I make those bars on the right indicating what I am replying to?)
“But it made me feel uneasy because it didn’t (seem to) address the real issue. It looked like an easy way out. It did work but it also cost quite some time each time.”
You can always address the real issue at some other time. The key is merely short-term timing, you don’t want to react immediately in a way that reinforces the unwanted behavior with attention. Later, when the kid is not engaging in unwanted behavior your can address the real issue for hours on end if you want. Often the best way to address the real issue is to immediately react to the behavior that is the opposite of the unwanted behavior by having a long conversation about why the opposite is so good and commendable. Or, better yet sometimes, immediately ask the kid why he/she engaged in the good behavior and get them to tell you why they think it is good and all that. Kids love to have their parents listen to them, its a great social reward for wanted behavior.
“But the point still stands: If the children notice that you intentionally condoned than you relativize your consequence. You can only do this if a) you accept this lenience or b) are sure that the (small) child will not notice. And if the act is indeed harmless.”
You are pretending to ignore. You are not condoning anything. The consequence is no attention. You are engaging in behavior shaping, notions like ’condoning” and “lenience” are not really categories in the behavior shaping process. Skillful behavior shaping is just the fastest way to accomplish lasting change according to the evidence. I my book, the fastest way to accomplish effective change is the direct opposite of condoning and lenience. I know this is not the way most parents think, but, in my opinion, it is the way to think. It does not matter if they notice it, the research shows it works whether they notice it or not.
Non-harmless unwanted behavior is a different matter, aggressive or significantly destructive behavior, it cannot be addressed by pretending to ignore. Redirection sometimes works. As a final resort use time-out, but most parents have no idea how to use time out. Time out is not a punishment, its just time-out from reinforcement. You can teach your kid to set in time out and reward them for executing a good time out. You can get the kid to practice time outs in advance of using it. Research show that time out works even if you award, praise, commend the kid for executing a good time out.
Parents tend to start the time out process with explanations. Explanations and face-time are time-in which is the opposite of time-out. Time-in, of course, tends to have the opposite effect of making the unwanted behavior more likely.
Parents tend to threaten time-out. Threatening time-out is time-in. Avoid threatening time-out.
When a time out is warranted, immediately initiate it with little or no talking and avoid looking at the kid. If you need to explain, say something short like “no biting”. One minute per year of age is a good guideline for the length of time-out.
Also there are some gamification methods. Say a kid is doing head-banging tantrums or otherwise self-destructive or property-destructive tantrums. You can play a pretend game where the kid engages in “good” tantrums and you give him positive attention for “good” tantrums. Via this process instill the habit of good tantrums that can be ignored. Pretend games are a good way to trigger a wanted behavior that is not otherwise occurring so that you can start reinforcing this behavior.
Anyway this is advanced stuff, I refer you to the books of Alan Kazdin.
PS: You will probably find that it is easy to talk about why bad behavior is bad, but harder to come up with a long monologue or even a bunch of short comments about why specific good behaviors are good. It’s worth working on this.
Thank you for your feedback. Seems you know what you write.
I looked up your comments and voted them. Note that you commented on old topics which will get votes seldomly. I voted them.
I also looked up Kazdin and just ordered a book from Amazon.
There is a help button right below the comment field that explains it and more.
I focused on behaviorism, but I just wanted to mention that The Incredible Years is a good evidence-based book that is not based soly in behaviorism. Kazdin’s are the best books on behaviorism as applied to parenting. Incredible Years integrates a bunch of methods including behaviorism.
Here’s a neat pictorial outline of the Incredible Years Program:
http://r2lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pyramid-in-color.jpg
Here’s the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Years-Trouble-Shooting-Guide/dp/1892222043/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389884443&sr=1-2
(There is also a cheaper 2002 edition on Amazon, not sure what the difference is.)
Here’s the Incredible Years website:
http://incredibleyears.com/
Thank you for your detailed comments earlier and your links. I have read the book and written a lengthy review of it here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/jzg/book_review_for_rational_parenting_kazdins_the/ would you like to check it whether you think it accurately represents the Kazdin method?