Living with Children: Science doesn’t have all the answers | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: Science doesn’t have all the answers

Question: I appreciate your traditional, call it old-fashioned approach to child rearing, but I’m a tad confused and hope you can help straighten out my thinking. I’ve been reading your column for maybe 20 years and have used many of your suggestions with success. Your recommendation that consequences be huge has been especially helpful, but I recently read an online interview that caused me some confusion. The psychologist being interviewed, who has very impressive credentials, said that when it comes to consequences, a few minutes in time out or taking away a privilege for a few hours or the rest of the day will suffice. He cited what he implied was the best research. Why should your readers, me included, believe your opinion over science?

Answer: My colleagues — not all, but certainly most — seem to be stuck in the late 1960s, when they began making these ridiculous claims (which I, a graduate student seeking to please my professors, believed as well) concerning punishment, consequences, rewards, self-esteem, letting children express their feelings freely and everything else parenting that has contributed to child mental health being in free-fall since that time. I cannot think of even one thing “they” have collectively recommended that has worked out well for children and parents.

To your question, I’m a certified heretic in my field. As such, any research paper I might submit to a journal isn’t going to be published. So, I don’t waste my time. Nonetheless, I’ve been doing parenting research since 1976 when I began writing this column. Known as “field research,” it consists of anecdotes collected from parents all over America, which almost without exception affirm that the best outcomes (happy kids who possess good social skills and do their best in school) are obtained by parents who adhere to a traditional parenting model involving unconditional love and unequivocal authority. The latter includes powerful, memorable consequences for misbehavior.

If you want to still be dealing a year from now with the same behavior problems you’re dealing with today, all you have to do is follow the advice of the psychological mainstream. (I believe I read the online article to which you refer, by the way, and found it to be nothing but the same-old, same-old ridiculousness “they” have been dispensing for 50 years.)

Concerning misbehavior, the punishment should NEVER fit the crime. Multiply the “size” of the crime by 10 and voila! you’ve got yourself a suitable consequence. If the pre-delinquent in question doesn’t scream, “THAT’S NOT FAIR!” and break out in hives, the consequence wasn’t large enough.

The point is to create a memorable experience, one the pre-delinquent — now a responsible citizen — will tell friends when he or she is 50 years old, to everyone’s amusement. Thus, one of my more brilliant parenting maxims: You need to give your kids things to laugh about when they grow up. They won’t laugh about you handing them the keys to a $60,000 sports car when they turned 16, but they will laugh about the outrageous discipline you handed out. The point, mind you, is not to be mean. It is to prove to your kids that you mean what you say, not sorta-kinda, but right down the line.

As for my opinion versus science: First, I’m not pulling arbitrary opinions out of thin air. That’s what “they” have been doing since I was a grad student. I’m passing along what worked for thousands of years until parents started listening to mental health professionals tell them how to raise kids (and child mental health went into a nose-dive) and, according to a consensus of parents, still works. Second, most of the parenting “research” being done today would have been used by my very logical experimental psychology professor as examples of junk science.

Third, this year marks the 40th year my column’s been in syndication. Let the free market of ideas speak for itself!

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website; readers may send him email; because of the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.