One shoe fits all?

by

Limits are needed to protect a child from harm and to promote autonomy. A primary theme of healthy parent child relationships is the transfer of control from the parent to the child. We want our children to learn to soothe themselves when they are upset, control behaviors that are potentially harmful to themselves or others, and to become self-directed rather than reliant upon outside sources of motivation.

Setting Developmentally Appropriate Limits

How do we set boundaries (or limits) when every child is temperamentally different and develops at his or own pace? Sounds like a frustratingly difficult level of complexity, doesn’t it? And when there are multiple children involved, what system could possibly be right for all?

Instead of trying to figure out what limits an adventuresome six-year-old or a demanding sixteen-year-old should have, think in terms of the basic themes that can guide you. Limits exist for two important purposes: insuring safety and promoting growth.

It is easy to set limits that assure safety if we are not concerned about growth. In some circumstances, safety is the only concern. When the tornado siren sounds, everyone belongs in the basement with flashlight, blanket, radio, food and water. When driving, seatbelts are fastened, and no alcohol, drugs, or phones are allowed. But when can a child have her training wheels off, leave the yard, cross the street, or stay out beyond 10pm?

The growth we hope to promote is the development is autonomy – self-directed, self-controlled, and emotionally self-regulated.  We want our children to learn to soothe themselves when they are upset, control behaviors that are potentially harmful to themselves or others, and to become self-directed rather than reliant upon outside sources of motivation.

Our use of limits needs to take into consideration the extent a child can self regulate. A toddler who cannot negotiate stairs needs a fence at either end or a spotter. These are removed as she demonstrates mastery on the stairs and a healthy respect for falling.

Remember the Zone of Proximal Development? (See Goldilocks is in the “Zone” – Where We Learn Best ) That concept applies to limit setting. In areas where a child can self regulate, no external limits are necessary. When the challenges of a situation would overwhelm a child’s abilities, limits are needed. The zone between these two points is where limits can be useful in promoting growth.

All children are born curious and possess an inborn drive toward autonomy. Children want to achieve mastery and be able to control their environments (and not let the environment control them). Children have a drive to crawl, walk and climb. Where they do their crawling, walking and climbing is sometimes an issue of safety. But if they wish to have a greater range for crawling, walking and climbing, they need to demonstrate their ability to do it safely.

Remember the Magic Formula for motivation: Investment = (I want) x (I can)? Many children, especially young ones, listen to the (I want) and are off and running. They are motivated to develop the (I can) part, but are often unable to be objective about the quality or reliability of the (I can) part.

Limits are necessary when the (I can) is not fully developed. Yet these limits need to be dynamic so that the child knows that developing the (I can) means a pulling back of the limits. Limits promote healthy growth when they are perceived as (show me you can) rather than (you can’t), thus supporting the (I want) x (I can) formula that works so well.

Elsewhere, I discuss the problems of children who are overly timid or avoidant, who self-limit, because of fears of getting hurt, losing approval, or failing. For these children, limit setting takes on a completely different role. For those who are avoiding, the parent may need to gently set limits on the behavior used to avoid important work that needs to be done. Or the parent may need to inquire about the (missing) curiosity and ambition. For the timid, cautious, or shy child, the parent may need to provide safe support for engagement (ala ZPD scaffolding) that is gradually withdrawn, as the child feels more competent and confident.

When the engines of curiosity, ambition, and autonomy are at work, limits are useful standards for the child to push against to develop and demonstrate mastery. The precocious four-year-old child who thinks she is ready for the training wheels to come off can assert herself by asking for an audition to show she is ready. When her dad cannot keep up with her to support her seat, maybe she is ready for the wheels to come off. When the child can swim two laps of the pool and can tread water for 10 minutes, he has shown he is ready to swim in the deep end of the pool and use the diving board. When the child can get herself up for school on her own every morning for two weeks, she has shown she is ready for a half hour later bedtime. In each of these examples, the child is motivated for the parent’s limits to be relaxed and that occurs by virtue of the child’s demonstration of self-regulation. In these cases, the drive for autonomy and the wish to push back the limits on that autonomy provide the engine for development.

This form of limits, where the child understands that they are subject to change by virtue of their demonstrated mastery (or responsibility) is completely different from a system where rules or limits are arbitrary and rigid. For instance, when rules exist, “because I said so” or “because you are not old enough”, children either lose the drive to become competent and autonomous, or they shift their efforts into evading the limits through secrecy and deception. In a healthy family relationship, the parent is able to explain the need for the limit (for safety) and the child understands the competence he or she must demonstrate to alter that limit. It is a transparent and dynamic process. The parent and child may not agree on what constitutes readiness, but all parties should be able to understand and explain the reasoning of the other. In other words, a parent can be understanding and empathic and still say, “no”. A child can be disappointed, but know that the parent understands why they think and feel the way they do.

Here are a couple of examples:

Party Girl?

“Dad, you can trust me to not drink at that party”, explains his fifteen-year-old daughter.

“I do trust you, kiddo. I just don’t trust some of the people who will be there who have been drinking”, responds her father.

“You mean I can never be around people who are drinking?”

“Explain to me how you will be safe. Plus, am I correct in believing the police hand out tickets to everyone who is underage at a party with alcohol?”

This young lady has her work cut out for her. But she is not hearing “no, because I said so”. She is hearing, “I need to know you will be safe” and “you cannot break the law”. She will have to do some planning and brainstorming with her friends in terms of safety, openness, adult supervision, and setting. But she will figure something out, because she knows her father is strict but fair and she has earned his trust through a process of solving problems by showing she has outgrown limits instead of trying to evade them.

My Very Own Dog?

“Mom, I really want a dog. I’ll take care of him. I promise,” pleads Timmy.

“I don’t know. That is a huge responsibility and the dog can really suffer if he isn’t fed and walked,” his mother reminds him.

“Jamie has a dog and I’m the same age he is,” as Timmy points next door.

“Yeah, and who is it I see every morning walking Jamie’s dog?” his mother chuckles, trying hard not to sound too cynical.

“Jamie’s father does. Oops. Bad example, eh? Can we rent a dog for a week so I can show you?” brainstorms Timmy.

“Rented dogs can’t suffer?”

“You know what I mean. Let me prove I’m ready.”

“How would you do that?” his mother says, looking more serious now.

“I can clean my room every week and make my bed every day,” replies Timmy, knowing what seems to matter to his mother most mornings.

“That would be nice to see. What does that have to do with taking care of a dog?”

“I could fix my own breakfast and take you for a walk every day,” answers Timmy, starting to get the idea he has to show her he can take care of the dog.

“That would be nice, but I still don’t see how that proves you are ready for a dog.”

“Come on Mom. How can I show you?”

“I have an idea. Get Sparky down from the shelf and you can pretend he is a real dog for two weeks,” recalling Timmy’s attachment to his old stuffed dog.

“He is a real dog, Mom.”

“Huh?”

“I still talk to him. He just doesn’t answer back like he used to.” Timmy remembers that is mother used to compare his relationship to Sparky to the one between Calvin and Hobbes, their favorite reading at bedtime.

“Take care of Sparky for two weeks like you would a really real dog.”

“Like with a really real leash, dog dish and pooper-scooper?”

“Yeah. Let’s make a schedule for feeding and walking Sparky and put it up in the kitchen.”

“Are we going to buy Sparky real food, or just feed him table scraps?”

“How about YOU feed him blue Lego’s in the morning and red Lego’s at dinnertime?”

“And I’ll scoop yellow Lego’s on our walks?”

“That’s more information than I need.”

“How often do I need to walk Sparky?”

“Call Grandpa and ask him how often he takes Buster out.”

“Hey, I just thought of how I can prove I’m ready. Next time Nana and Grandpa go away, I can take care of Buster.”

“If you are reliable with the Sparky for two weeks, you can ask Grandpa.”

Just because a child is nine years old does not mean he is ready for “nine-year-old” privileges and responsibilities. Those should come by virtue of demonstrated mastery, on developmental time, rather than chronological time. Therefore, we are constantly assessing what a child can handle independently and where he is headed next. Fortunately, children usually let us know what is next. It is up to us to negotiate a process whereby they can develop more self-reliance. Support for their engagement as they master skills or take on increasingly more responsibility can be gradually withdrawn as they demonstrate a readiness. In other words, limits are created and amended on developmental time, not chronological or social time.

If you have not already read the distinction between developmental time and social/biological time, this would be a good time to click on that link.

Save it for a rainy day.

by

A fun activity for all ages is described that promotes curiosity, logical thinking, and emotional self-control.

 

Solving The Black Box Puzzle

Do you have a little scientist-to-be living under your roof? Does your little scientist have an unquenchable thirst for new toys, projects, and equipment? There will never be enough money or space, will there? And how many “why?” questions can your kid ask before you say, “enough”? Supporting a child’s curiosity should not break the bank, nor should s/he depend on you as the sole source of knowledge. A good little scientist is not only curious, but also self-directed and resilient. Curiosity and persistence is an unbeatable combination in life. However, these characteristics can use some nurturing.

Here is a simple project that costs very little and promotes developmental goals important to a young scientist.

Find an old shoebox, a roll of duct tape, some cardboard, and a knife. Use pieces of cardboard and tape to create a new interior for the box. (Anything goes: ramps, mazes, etc.) Then include some expendable object (a Sammy Sosa autographed baseball, an out-of-date iPhone, …) that will navigate this interior. Close the box and seal it with duct tape.

Present it to your young scientist with this challenge:

“Figure out what object is in the box and what the interior of the box looks like. You can do anything you want to the box, except open it. Take as long as you want.”

A true scientist will need to keep a record of hypotheses and tests performed. A young child may need a scribe, but after that, consider affixing paper to the box or finding a little (lab) notebook. If your spouse wants in on the fun, then the lab notebook can stay with the box, for anyone to annotate. How the experimenting is recorded can take any form. Just don’t open the box.

What are we accomplishing?

Keeping the mess inside a single box (a noble goal in itself)?

Promoting curiosity and inquiry.

Encouraging logical thinking in the form of hypothesis generation & testing.

Encouraging persistence (because you are NOT going to open the box).

Also promoting tolerance and resilience (because you are NOT going to open the box).

Promoting debate and discussion (because you are NOT going to open the box).

Promoting emotional self-control, as in dealing with frustration and impatience (because you are NOT going to open the box).

 Do you think you can resist opening the box? I’ll leave that decision to you. However, scientists have developed useful theories, such as Evolution, The Big Bang, and Relativity without complete access to the inside of the box. At our house, I never did open the boxes, but for the life of me, I can’t seem to find them anywhere.

Don’t Eat The Marshmallow!

by

Delay of gratification, willpower, impulse control, self-control, or internal discipline are terms that describe an ability to wait to be rewarded. Although some children are temperamentally less impulsive, the ability to self-soothe, distract, or reason about an urge to act can be learned and improved. The ability to delay gratification (develop internal discipline) is an important ingredient for gaining competence in all areas of a child’s life (socially, emotionally and intellectually).

An Ability to Delay Gratification Predicts Success in Life

 Are you familiar with the classic delay of gratification studies conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s? The what? Have you seen the YouTube video of four-year-olds trying to resist eating the marshmallow in front of them? If I had asked you, have you ever heard of the MarshmallowTest, you would have known exactly what I was talking about. Give it up for YouTube, where gratification need never be delayed. I still have not jogged your memory? Then go to YouTube right now for a reenactment of the classic study, where four-year-old children are left alone in a room with a marshmallow (or a cookie, or candy) with the promise of a second marshmallow if they do not eat this one before the experimenter returns (in 15 minutes). Only thirty percent of the children were able to wait. Not surprising, is it?

Mischel discovered that by the end of high school, the kids who were able to wait seemed better adjusted psychologically and were higher achievers, with significantly higher SAT scores (>200 pts higher) and better grades. Those who could not wait more than thirty seconds had trouble paying attention in school, coping with stress, and maintaining friendships. More recently, Angela Lee Duckworth at the University of Pennsylvania offered eighth graders one dollar now or two if they could wait a week. Those who could wait fared much better academically. In fact, this measure of self-control was a better predictor of academic achievement than IQ.

As you might guess, these kids who can delay gratification grow up to be the ones who invest for retirement, wait for the best pitch to hit, and don’t say, “yes” to the first bad idea. They are able to wait to play their video games until after the homework is done.

So, are these delayers born with something special? Are their brains wired differently from birth? Are some kids just naturally more impulsive while others are more cautious and deliberate? You can be sure that the fMRI machines are cranking away in search of these answers. We can also be certain that a search for a genetic linkage will also be part of the next wave of research.

So what does that mean for us sticky fingered failures? Are we doomed to a second-class future, swinging at everything we are thrown, eating everything we see? Interestingly, Mischel found that he could provide children with techniques for resisting temptation. He said kids who continue to focus on the “hot stimulus” were doomed. But the ones who could distract themselves, were able to resist. Providing kids with techniques for taking their thoughts elsewhere, or transforming the meaning of the situation could be very helpful. In other words, self-control can be taught. Mischel also pointed out that a group of the kids who “failed to wait” grew up to be quite skilled in self-control as adults. Somehow, they found ways to teach themselves the self-regulation that came more naturally to the “delayers”.

Children are temperamentally inclined in one direction or another. At one extreme are the kids who are impulsive and labeled as Attention Deficit, Hyperactive. At the other extreme are the kids who come to be labeled as Obsessive Compulsive. Most kids are somewhere in between. Even though biology or temperament inclines a child in one direction or another, that does not mean they cannot grow in terms of self-control (or spontaneity).

Environments can be structured to help with focus and attention. Children can be taught techniques for self-control and self-soothing. Mischel explained that children can be taught habits of self-control in the family through rituals that force kids to wait on a daily basis, showing them that they can develop that self-control, and having them learn the benefits for that delay. Examples of that are limits such as no television or video games until homework is done, no snacks before dinner, save money for a desired purchase and wait until your birthday for a wished for gift. When children must work within limits (a clothing allowance for instance) they learn the benefits of self-control and the hazards of impulsivity.