Kids can't be spolied by attention

[Bluegoat]

This relates to another discussion I'm involved with about tantrums, and time-ins rather than time-outs, and whether they help a small child calm down.

 

I think they can, especially a really young child who is out of control.  Some kids need some help to figure out how to become calm.

 

However, the trend among the younger parents seems to be something that is popular in some book - which claims that giving a child attention during some kind of meltdown or bad behavior cannot "spoil" the child - by which they seem to mean create a motivation for further tantrums.

 

I think this is a pretty dodgy statement - I've certainly seen adults and teens who engage in negative behaviors for some kind of attention-reward, I've seen some kids who have learned to "tantrum" on purpose, and I've seen animals learn to do things that are no longer attached to the original incident for some other reason.

 

So - I tend to think younger kids are not radically different from other human beings or animals, and you can see similar kinds of behaviors.

 

When I asked, the response seemed to be that a child will prefer a positive way to gain attention, if they can get it, rather than one which is unpleasant or has negative consequences attached.

 

Does that seem likely to others?  I'm not sure that people are that rational all the time, or that parents are always that good at making sure we are always as responsive as kids would like to positive behaviors, even if we try.  Sometimes it seems like human neediness can be pretty infinite.

 

 

 

[regentrude]

There are definitely behaviors that seek attention in a negative way, and I think rewarding the child with extra attention at these times can establish a habit.

 

I would think children cannot be spoiled by attention if the attention is given in any other situation - just NOT as a reward for undesirable behavior. Attention itself is a positive and necessary thing, and I have observed that children who can usually fill their need for parental attention are less likely to throw fits or engage in negative attention seeking behavior than children who only receive attention if they misbehave.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by regentrude

[lamppost]

 

 

So - I tend to think younger kids are not radically different from other human beings or animals, and you can see similar kinds of behaviors.

 

 

 

 

There have been huge advances in brain research over the past decade or so. If you're interested, there's a lot of research out there on the brains of children as they develop and how brain development affects behavior. So yes, young kids are different from adults in terms of their ability to handle emotions.

 

Here's a great summary of the book I would recommend to anyone who has this question: http://empoweredtoconnect.org/the-whole-brain-child/

[SKL]

I think this may be kid-specific and age-specific by kid.

 

I generally feel that with my kids, if they are fussing for attention, it's because they are needing attention.  So I give it - unless there is some clear manipulation going on.  I don't find that giving my kids attention ever increased their fussing.  The only time I see manipulation with one of them is when someone else is giving them a hard time e.g. for being impolite.  That is getting a lot better though.

[Catalytic]

I've recently had interaction with a child whose parent uses "Time In"....personally I think the child could use a spanking.  Spoiled brat doesn't even come close to describing the child...and I have a spoiled brat myself!

[Melissa in Australia]

I've recently had interaction with a child whose parent uses "Time In"....personally I think the child could use a spanking.  Spoiled brat doesn't even come close to describing the child...and I have a spoiled brat myself!

we use a form of time in. Basically child is held by the hand by me for a while. I do not engage with child while this punishment is taking place. ( very very hard on me). I do admit I have moments where I imagine it would be so much better/ less stressful to give him a spanking. but I am restricted by having signed a declaration I would never spank a foster child as part of my licencing. Plus  spanking a child who has been abused wouldn't be really effective, plus part ( if not most) of the inability to regulate and extreme defiance is probably to do with trauma and how it has affected the child's brain.

[Guest]

I don't think you can spoil a child with attention via a quality interaction - playing games together, reading a story, a hug or kiss, teaching them a skill alongside you, etc.

 

The only real problem I have ever seen is when a parent substitutes these healthy interactions with things like putting the child off, bribing them or trading money for time, and refusing to address defiant or unhealthy behaviors in a constructive, corrective manner but instead just ignore them and hope the problem will go away. This is rare, I think, in most families. It does happen but most families I've seen strike a good balance of family life and individual attention, along with relationship development and correction, and thus most children don't really have to default to the unhealthy manipulative behaviors because they have a sound, appropriate, fulfilling relationship with their families and don't need to.

 

When I see a kid acting that way, I usually assume something is wrong at a deeper level than just the acting out. It is a symptom more than a cause. More positive, nurturing, instructive attention is the remedy, not the problem. The problem tends to be a child who isn't getting the basics from their parent in terms of quality relationship.

 

It's a broad generalization, buts that's been my limited experience with this.

[Paige]

It depends on the kid. Generally, however, I think that if your child is having tantrums frequently in order to get attention, then they probably need the attention. It would be better for the parent to find a way to give that attention in other ways, but I don't think not giving attention (time outs) would make the situation better. But...what do I know? My youngest is 9.

 

In my own kids, I found some settle better when given space (time out) and some settle better when coached through it (time in). 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Paige

[amy g.]

I don't believe children can be spoiled by positive attention any more than I believe adults can.

[LucyStoner]

I mostly reject the notion that kids can spoil. All all. Kids are not jugs of milk.

 

Sometimes my children need alone time when they meltdown. Sometimes they need extra attention when they melt down. My job is figuring out which they need AND teaching them to figure out what it is they need when they are feeling overwhelmed.

Edited September 6, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

Yes, the word "spoil" is a funny one, and I think not all that helpful bcause it could mean so many things.  As far as I can tell, the intent in this case is to say that the default response of the "time -n" for tantrums or other bad behavior will not tend to cause the child to repeat the bad behavior in order to obtain the result.

 

What surprised me, or what I found doubtful, is that this seems to be presented in whatever the popular book is as a principle - a truth that will always be the case.  And yet a lot of parents find at some point a child will engage in manipulative behavior of some kind that the parent has unintentionally reinforced.  This doesn't seem to be something restricted to parents who ignore their kids or don't give positive attention, just pretty regular people.  It doesn't even seem like it has to happen a lot to get the behavior reinforced with some kids.

 

 

 

[Carrie12345]

I mostly reject the notion that kids can spoil. All all. Kids are not jugs of milk.

 

Sometimes my children need alone time when they meltdown. Sometimes they need extra attention when they melt down. My job is figuring out which they need AND teaching them to figure out what it is they need when they are feeling overwhelmed.

 

This!  (Well, the second part.)

 

My kids are going through a challenging time right now.  My discipline methods, while they've undoubtedly evolved slightly over 18 years, have pretty much remained consistant in their basis all their lives, but I've needed to change them for the current situation.  My 5yo has gotten several "time-ins" recently, because his behaviors were clearly results of new, unexpected issues that he's never been taught how to handle.  That isn't his fault.  And he is learning.

 

That said, if my 5yo threw the same tantrum over the same thing for months on end, Mommy Lovey Time-In sounds like it would be an incredibly dumb idea.

[Bluegoat]

There have been huge advances in brain research over the past decade or so. If you're interested, there's a lot of research out there on the brains of children as they develop and how brain development affects behavior. So yes, young kids are different from adults in terms of their ability to handle emotions.

 

Here's a great summary of the book I would recommend to anyone who has this question: http://empoweredtoconnect.org/the-whole-brain-child/

 

Yes - I was kind of thinking across the board - so not just people, but animals, almost a pure unintended reinforcement of behavior.  I get the impression that some of the parents think that young kids are never going to do anything that might be considered "bad" unless poor parenting drives them to it.  Almost as if there is a kind of moral purity line there that they won't cross.  And yet adults and older kids do sometimes do "bad" things either as a conscious decision or as a learned response, and animals also will learn to repeat behaviors in order to obtain an outcome that somehow they find reinforcing, even if it seems like it wouldn't be that great an outcome to us.  People seem pretty regularly to inadvertently teach pets to do these odd things, and some of them seem to have no obvious logical connection - they only had a logic, to a dog, the first time.  But it's powerful enough to create a behavior.

 

I suppose I don't actually think there is a real moral component with young kids with regard to setting up an inadvertent reward, and even with older ones moral considerations are is still balanced  with other kinds of more basic rewards.  Given that it seems fairly easy to set up links under those circumstances, I'd be hesitant to say it would not happen with small kids because they don't do "bad" things.  As far as adults, their control is different, and their ability to rationalize and abstract, but I don't think they are different in that they can be both motivated by rewards even if it seems selfish - I don't think children are immune from being egotistical more than adults are.

[Joules]

Yes, the word "spoil" is a funny one, and I think not all that helpful bcause it could mean so many things.  As far as I can tell, the intent in this case is to say that the default response of the "time -n" for tantrums or other bad behavior will not tend to cause the child to repeat the bad behavior in order to obtain the result.

 

Overall, I haven't seen this.  Kids with more attention from their parents tend to be better behaved.  In the parks, the real problem kids are the ones whose moms never look up from their phones.  Attentive parents can notice problems before they get big.

 

On the other hand, if the ONLY time a kid gets attention from an adult is when they misbehave, then I could see the above happening.  Some parents really do ignore their children completely unless there is a problem that has to be dealt with.  It certainly happens in homes with addiction problems, but I think also in homes where kids should be "seen and not heard" or are treated as a nuisance. 

[Guest]

There are definitely behaviors that seek attention in a negative way, and I think rewarding the child with extra attention at these times can establish a habit.

 

I would think children cannot be spoiled by attention if the attention is given in any other situation - just NOT as a reward for undesirable behavior. Attention itself is a positive and necessary thing, and I have observed that children who can usually fill their need for parental attention are less likely to throw fits or engage in negative attention seeking behavior than children who only receive attention if they misbehave.

I agree. When my trickiest kid was 3-4, I scheduled at least a 1/2 hour of direct play with him each morning. He did so much better if I "filled his tank" with direct attention early in the day.

[Zinnia]

I had a child with tantrums long past the time when it was socially acceptable.  One of the most common pieces of advice that I got was that it was because he just needed attention and was "crying out for it, any way he could."  

Bull.

 

It took years to figure out, but that child was just straight up overwhelmed by anything and nothing, and his tantrums had little to nothing to do with rational thought.  It's been a little over a year since a full blown tantrum, and we've made great strides, but sometimes still, I can see the bubbling inside, and I have to help talk him through those feelings.  They are not abut attention, but just internal feelings that he can't quite figure out how to manage.

[HomeAgain]

I had a lovely online friend years ago who wrote out a paper called the 5 Stages Of A Tantrum.  It was aimed at parents of the 2-5yo crowd.  Mostly it was about how/when to intervene, when to leave a child alone, etc. but what stuck out the most was the notion that a tantrum is not a manipulation technique, but a loss of control.  In adults, that's exactly what we call it, right?

 

I do believe that.......mostly.  I've also seen 4yos use tantrums to manipulate their parents into doing what they want.  Parents get stuck on the notion that Suzy can't help it and coddle her through the tantrum using tools that, in wiser hands, wouldn't be brought out at that point (empathy, imagination, redirection).  My oldest was 5 when he told me calmly, and with a serious face, "if you don't let me, I will have a tantrum."  (I told him to go ahead).  But I still have a 6yo who seriously gets overwhelmed and breaks down.  Until he's developed enough self-control to take himself on a time in/time out every time, my job is to direct him to what he needs.

 

I don't believe a time in or a time out should be a punishment at all.  I believe they're tools to help a child gain self control so they can come back and deal with the problem at hand, whether that means accepting a "no", or cleaning up a mess, or even taking a break from work to refocus.  I think each has their place and some children prefer one over the other.  The punishment, if there needs to be one, can happen AFTER the cooling off time.

[ktgrok]

I mostly reject the notion that kids can spoil. All all. Kids are not jugs of milk.

 

Sometimes my children need alone time when they meltdown. Sometimes they need extra attention when they melt down. My job is figuring out which they need AND teaching them to figure out what it is they need when they are feeling overwhelmed.

 

Right. 

 

I mean, its not about "giving attention" it's about figuring out what they need and meeting their need. They don't need me less just because they are acting in a way society or I don't like. Often, they need me more right then. 

 

Now, if by attention you mean giving them an ice cream cone every time they frown or get upset, sure that could end up backfiring. But if you mean, trying to figure out why they are upset, sitting with them until they calm down, empathizing with their emotions, etc, no, that doesn't spoil children. Or adults. 

 

Honestly, think of an adult. If I was crying over something, even something dumb, say because I had bad PMS or was hungry or stressed out about something totally different and this one thing was the last straw, my husband isn't going to walk away to teach me a lesson, or keep from spoiling me. He's going to hug me and ask what's wrong, hold me while I cry if I want, maybe get me a drink of water or a cup of tea, etc. Why on earth is that the right response for an adult, but "spoiling' a child?

[ktgrok]

Well, first, if I am crying over something, I may not necessarily WANT someone to hug me, I may very well WANT to be left alone.  If I am crying over something, a hug, going to give me a drink, etc, may NOT necessarily be the right response, and leaving me alone might be.  That's something that very personal and individualistic.

 

 

But also, it's not appropriate for adults to teach other adults lessons.  However, it is totally a parents job to teach children things.  It's my job to teach my children their ABCs and 123s and to teach them how to cross the street and how to be polite, and yes...to teach them how to start to control their emotions. 

Well yes, if I ask to be left alone, he'll do that. My point was, it would be considered mean to avoid me just in hopes of getting me to stop crying and being upset. And it's mean to do that to a kid, too. 

 

As for an adult teaching another adult a lesson, the point was more that there is no lesson to be learned here. Do I need to learn a lesson in controlling my emotions in the scenario listen, and it just isn't my husband's place to teach me a lesson. Or am I just reacting as a normal human, same as a kid?

 

Now, I don't call a kid avoiding bedtime by hiding as one having a tantrum. To me, a tantrum is when they are out of control, crying, etc. Not just not doing what you want. 

[Soror]

I generally agree with the statement that kids can't spoil by giving them too much attention.

 

Although I would say that attention must be in tangent with boundaries, increasingly so as they age. I mean a baby relies on us 100% and we should give all we can as much as we are able. But as kids age we cannot continue to give everything, all the time, it is not healthy for them or us. Parenthood shouldn't be martydom, you shouldn't be sacrificing your emotional, physical and mental well-being to do everything for your child. I think that can lead to kids that perhaps have an inflated sense of self and are selfish. Of course all kids are different. I have one who tends towards being anxious I've tried a couple of times to just hug and love and support her through it but I've found that it only leads her to spiral further down. What works instead is firmly identifying the behavior and giving her choices of ways to settle down, choices we discussed whenever she was in a good place. 

[amy g.]

I'm going to change some of the terms of this question. "Can a child be made unhappy (and bring down everyone around them) when they are not given appropriate boundaries?"

 

If that was the question, my answer would be ABSOLUTELY!

 

I wouldn't call that child spoiled though. I'd call him neglected because his parents have neglected to parent him.

 

A healthy child who is getting his basic physical and emotional needs met Does not want constant attention. He wants to check in then go draw a picture, check in then play a game of tag, check in then eat lunch and watch a movie....

 

If one of my kids was misbehaving just to get attention, I'd look long and hard about what needed to be changed in our family so that the kid's needs were being better met.

 

Sure, some kids are obnoxious. Sometimes they are clingy because they are starting to get sick or they are going through a growth spurt or they have a food alergy or they aren't getting enough sleep. And sometimes it is easier for adults to just say the kid is spoiled rather than do the hard work of figuring out what the real problem is and generating solutions.

 

I'll update my other post about my dogs barking because it ties into the idea of rewarding bad behavior.

 

I checked in with my next door neighbor's, and they told me there was barking about 5:00 am. It turns out that my daughter was letting out her basset at that time and waiting for her to bark to come back in. I put an end to that. Now she stands at the door and let's her in before she barks.

 

With the Pyrenees, I worried about rewarding their barking. If I came to the door and told them to quit barking, would they bark more just to see me at the door?

 

That didn't happen though. I made an effort to spend more time with them when they are being good. I started drinking my coffee outside with them, making sure they get a long walk before bed, keeping my female in the same room with me when I'm home.

 

What I found is that once their needs were better met, they don't want attention from me 24 hours a day. Just like the kid in the example above, they want to come to me for a quick pet then find a bone, get a little attention then take a nap in the sun....

 

Are there some dogs that would never settle down no matter what the owner does? Sure. But that might be due to poor breeding or health problems, not spoiling with attention.

 

My neighbor's reported that the barking has stopped like a switch was flipped.

 

When a kid is acting out, my first questions are about physical needs. Is his blood sugar low? Does he need more exercise?

 

Then it is about emotional needs. Is he about to have a new sibling? Are his parents going through a divorce? Has grandma suddenly come to live with them?

 

Children need appropriate boundaries when they are acting out, but they also need compassionate adults who are willing to find the source of the problem rather than just punishing them and yes, they require quite a bit of attention.

[ktgrok]

I do think maybe the issue is defining tantrum. My 6 year old doesn't tantrum, to me, but she is dramatic and sometimes gets way ridiculous over things. I can tell the difference from the drama (which I ignore or tell her to calm down) and a true "melt down" which is what I think of as a tantrum. I react differently to those. My other kids don't really do the drama. 

[Bluegoat]

Sometimes, kids misbehave, act out, throw a fit, have a tantrum.  Because they are kids.  Not because parents aren't providing enough positive attention, but because they are kids.  It happens.

 

My kids get plenty of positive attention.  Last night we all spent the evening together watching American Ninja Warrior.  During commercials they would put on their own little show, showing us exactly how they would run or jump across the obstacles.  We would clap, they would hug us etc.  While it was on, everyone would cheer or groan together when someone won or fell.  Plenty of attention and fun for all.

 

And DS3 still threw a bit of a fit when it was time to go to bed.  Because he didn't want to go to bed.  He cried, he kept saying no, he tried to hide under the blanket in the front room.  He wasn't out of control, and he wasn't seeking attention.  He just didn't want to go to bed.  We ignored the tantrum, picked him up and put him in bed.  He went to sleep. 

 

Now, if we had engaged with him and tried to calm him down, rather than just picking him up and putting him in bed, he would have learned that by throwing his little fit, he got what he wanted, which was to stay up.  Which means the next time he would try the same thing, hoping to get the same result...not to have to go to bed.  At the same time, we weren't "punishing" him for the fit...no spankings, no "time out", just...ignore it, put the kid to bed.   He learns that throwing a little fit doesn't get him out of going to bed. 

 

Yes, this is the kind of situation I am thinking of.  Not, properly speaking, a real loss of control, but what you might call a will to power - trying to have what the child wants to happen, happen. 

 

I've generally found with anything like that, ignoring works best at the time it is going on, being just totally non-plussed and even "surprised" that anyone would behave that way.  I'd do a time-out if it was just too unpleasent for others to deal with.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I mostly reject the notion that kids can spoil. All all. Kids are not jugs of milk.

 

Sometimes my children need alone time when they meltdown. Sometimes they need extra attention when they melt down. My job is figuring out which they need AND teaching them to figure out what it is they need when they are feeling overwhelmed.

 

:iagree:   Although sometimes, the word spoiled is useful for describing a certain pattern of behavior in a child.  I don't like "spoiled" because it feels like something that is spoiled is permanently ruined.  Whereas a "spoiled" child can of course be brought back to acceptable behavior most of the time with some targeted parenting moves.  

 

 

 

 

I think all children would prefer positive to negative attention, but any attention to none.  My dad used to always play a good rigorous game of rough house, hide-n-seek, and so on with my brother and I about an hour before we expected guests for dinner.  This got us out of my mom's hair, and also filled up our "attention meter" so that while guests were there, we were able to eat, then drift off to our own activities.  If the meter hasn't been filled, and mom and dad are not able to give positive attention (because they are cooking, schooling, nursing baby, having tea with neighbor...) then the kid with the empty tank may very well resort to behavior that earns negative attention.  

 

We have arranged our whole school day around getting my 4yo's meter filled first thing in the morning.  Our school day starts directly with 30 minutes of time focused on HER, while big kids read from their lists and baby plays with math manipulatives.   :laugh:   Prior to scheduling like this, she would just stand at my knee and ask constantly what she could do, could she play on the iPad, could she watch a movie...  Once her attention tank is filled though, she will happily run off and play with baby, or her play kitchen, or her toys.  

[Bluegoat]

Well yes, if I ask to be left alone, he'll do that. My point was, it would be considered mean to avoid me just in hopes of getting me to stop crying and being upset. And it's mean to do that to a kid, too. 

 

As for an adult teaching another adult a lesson, the point was more that there is no lesson to be learned here. Do I need to learn a lesson in controlling my emotions in the scenario listen, and it just isn't my husband's place to teach me a lesson. Or am I just reacting as a normal human, same as a kid?

 

Now, I don't call a kid avoiding bedtime by hiding as one having a tantrum. To me, a tantrum is when they are out of control, crying, etc. Not just not doing what you want. 

 

I don't know though, that you would very likely try and treat your husband the way kids will treat each other or adults.  Some adults do - people with addiction issues, personality disorders, or just big fat jerks, though they are probably more sophisticated in their approach than a child will be.

 

While with adults that sort of behavior is generally considered abnormal in some way, I don't think it always is with kids - it can be developmentally pretty normal for a child to try and manipulate other people, or to use physical violence, or just have a very egocentric view of situations.

 

With adults like that, people often have to cut them off in some sense.  With kids it's different because time and experience will probably change the situation significantly, but I'm not sure that it's any kind of help to see it as a loss of control, I think it's an attempt to assert control inappropriately.

[Bluegoat]

I do think maybe the issue is defining tantrum. My 6 year old doesn't tantrum, to me, but she is dramatic and sometimes gets way ridiculous over things. I can tell the difference from the drama (which I ignore or tell her to calm down) and a true "melt down" which is what I think of as a tantrum. I react differently to those. My other kids don't really do the drama. 

 

Yes, I think that is part of the issue, and also the idea that a broad definition of tantrum is invariably related to a need for attention.  And even that all attention is good attention, or it always looks very similar.  I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that some attention is really bad attention, even if it seems 'softer" than some other approach - plcating kids with food or toys regularly rather than asserting an important boundary - well, that would be bad attention, even if well meant and effective in the short term, and seemingly a more harmonious solution.

[Jaybee]

I generally agree with the statement that kids can't spoil by giving them too much attention.

 

Although I would say that attention must be in tangent with boundaries, increasingly so as they age. I mean a baby relies on us 100% and we should give all we can as much as we are able. But as kids age we cannot continue to give everything, all the time, it is not healthy for them or us. Parenthood shouldn't be martydom, you shouldn't be sacrificing your emotional, physical and mental well-being to do everything for your child. I think that can lead to kids that perhaps have an inflated sense of self and are selfish. Of course all kids are different. I have one who tends towards being anxious I've tried a couple of times to just hug and love and support her through it but I've found that it only leads her to spiral further down. What works instead is firmly identifying the behavior and giving her choices of ways to settle down, choices we discussed whenever she was in a good place. 

 

Yes. I think attention is important, and when my twins were little, if I gave them some time before we tried to start school, they were much happier to play without distracting us. However, I think we can teach a child that the world is there to serve them, and that it centers around them, to the point that it can be detrimental. Finding a good balance takes a lot of wisdom.

[goldberry]

Sometimes my children need alone time when they meltdown. Sometimes they need extra attention when they melt down. My job is figuring out which they need AND teaching them to figure out what it is they need when they are feeling overwhelmed.

 

Very well put!

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, if the ONLY time a kid gets attention from an adult is when they misbehave, then I could see the above happening.  Some parents really do ignore their children completely unless there is a problem that has to be dealt with.  It certainly happens in homes with addiction problems, but I think also in homes where kids should be "seen and not heard" or are treated as a nuisance. 

 

This is very true.

[Ravin]

I think children and parents can become locked in a negative feedback loop--when the child gets far more attention for bad behavior than positive attention, the child will act out and do things to get that attention, because they want and need to know that they are important to those they depend on.

 

I don't think that helping a child calm down encourages this type of loop when the child also receives plenty of positive attention. The loop happens when the child is largely ignored when everything is copacetic and going smoothly.

 

The same kind of thing can happen in relationships between adults.

[Guest]

It's developmentally appropriate for children to be much more egotistical than adults, in general.

[maize]

It's developmentally appropriate for children to be much more egotistical than adults, in general.

 

Yep.

 

And really, why would it surprise us that vulnerable, dependent little people should act--vulnerable and dependent?

 

 

I agree with PP that children are not jugs of milk, spoiling is a poor metaphor. Yes, parents and children can get stuck in poor interaction patterns, but it is not because a child has gone rotten.

[Bluegoat]

THinking about this - the book that the people I was talking to is supposed to be a book on disapline and how to manage behavior generally in pre-schoolers, not just on how to manage an emotionally overwhelmed child.

 

I think what seemed odd to me is that the principle and approach seemed so one-dimentional.  If we are talking about two-year olds having real tantrums (whih is a word I tend to define rather narrowly) than probably it is true that figuring out how to help the child calm down is going to be the best approach and often that will be somewhat hands on, and that won't create a bigger problem. 

 

On the other hand, I think once you are talking about a four year old, you will often have all kinds of other things going on, different motivations, different habits, different ways of thinking. 

 

I'm not sure I accept the idea that when kids seek attention negatively, it is because they aren't getting enough positive attention.  I do think if there is no positive attention, the negative kind is going to be a much bigger problem.  But there are a few reasons I would not want to make a more unilateral statement.

 

The fist is that I think that there is a bit of assumption implicit that what a child wants is also what a child needs, and I don't think that is always true once children are able to formulate wants n more sophisticated ways - I think it's very much human nature that we can want things that we do not in fact need, including perhaps unlimited parental attention, or sometimes attention right now rather than at a different time, or attention in relation to something else.

 

I don't know that the goal of the acting out is actually always attention, in itself.  Someone above mentioned that it might be avoiding something, like say bedtime, or it could be something else.  If that is the case, it isn't really the attention that is creating a problem at all, it's satisfaction of some other desire. 

 

 

The other thing that strikes me is that in my experience, normally when we talk about negative attention the ideas is not just that the behavior is negative (hitting say) it is that the response the child gets is negative (being scolded, not allowed to play with the others.)  But because the attention is so desired by the child, they are willing to accept that negative response as opposed to nothing.  Within that scenario, yes, a child who also gets positive attention on a regular basis is not so likely to go out of his way to elicit the negative kind. 

 

But what seems to be suggested in this discipline book is that the negative behavior receives a response that is not so clearly negative - the adult might perceive it as being corrective, but I'm not sure that is always how it would seem to the child, because it seems to involve cuddling, quiet talking together and focus on the child rather than other things or people, and NOT include much even in the way of scolding or stern voices.  So the negative behavior is eliciting a response that is a lot closer to neutral and may even seem positive depending on what it is the child is looking for.  I think people are much more likely to engage in a negative behavior to elicit a response they actually enjoy at some level, which is quite different than engaging in a behavior even if only to elicit a negative response. 

 

Is that the same thing, really, as being willing to accept negative attention rather than none? 

[maize]

 

 

But what seems to be suggested in this discipline book is that the negative behavior receives a response that is not so clearly negative - the adult might perceive it as being corrective, but I'm not sure that is always how it would seem to the child, because it seems to involve cuddling, quiet talking together and focus on the child rather than other things or people, and NOT include much even in the way of scolding or stern voices. So the negative behavior is eliciting a response that is a lot closer to neutral and may even seem positive depending on what it is the child is looking for. I think people are much more likely to engage in a negative behavior to elicit a response they actually enjoy at some level, which is quite different than engaging in a behavior even if only to elicit a negative response.

 

I do not see a need to respond negatively to negative behavior. If I engage negatively with my children, I antagonize them and prompt them to react defensively.

 

What I try to do, to the best of my ability, is to validate their feelings, help them regulate their emotions, and once they feel calm and secure help them think through their actions and find more appropriate behavioral options.

 

This is how I would want people to interact with me, I do not see why the Golden Rule should not apply to children. If my husband were harsh and scolding when he didn't like something I had done I can't see anything positive coming of it! If he tries to see my point of view, helps me feel secure and loved, and then tries to help me see his point of view I am much, much more likely to try to modify my behavior in a positive manner in the future.

Edited September 6, 2016 by maize

[Bluegoat]

I do not see a need to respond negatively to negative behavior. If I engage negatively with my children, I antagonize them and prompt them to react defensively.

 

What I try to do, to the best of my ability, is to validate their feelings, help them regulate their emotions, and once they feel calm and secure help them think through their actions and find more appropriate behavioral options.

 

This is how I would want people to interact with me, I do not see why the Golden Rule should not apply to children. If my husband were harsh and scolding when he didn't like something I had done I can't see anything positive coming of it! If he tries to see my point of view, helps me feel secure and loved, and then tries to help me see his point of view I am much, much more likely to try to modify my behavior in a positive manner in the future.

 

My point wasn't that people should or should not respond negativly. 

 

But that when people talk about children seeking even negative attention, what they usually mean is the child is willing to accept even a negative response, because that is better than what he gets otherwise - that is, nothing.

 

From that perspective, it would seem to make sense that it would be somewhat limited to kids who can't find ways to get more positive attention, and that giving that negative attention is unlikely to reinforce undesirable behavior unless there is a real lack elsewhere.  Negative attention is better than nothing, but most of the time probably not better than positive attention.  So a child doing that a lot - more positive opportunities is probably a great idea.

 

That argument does not seem to follow though, if the child is getting a positive response for negative behavior.  Most people would expect that if every time a child does something negative, he gets a toy he wants, that he might do a lot more negative things.  That seems so obvious no one would likely do it, but I think it illustrates the idea in terms of causation - it isn't necessarily the negative behavior the child dislikes in that case it is often the negative response.

 

So if we say - "don't give a negative response for negative behavior", and "you don't need to worry about your response reinforcing behavior because kids don't prefer negative responses if they can get positive ones", that does not seem to follow. 

 

I don't think what I would call a negative response has to be nasty.  But I do think it can be clear, and non-approving, or non-negotiable.  Not all actions are because of lack of understanding or even lack of self-control.  And really, adults can call each other out too sometimes about such things without it being nasty.  I am sure most people have had to be firm with someone from time to time.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Bluegoat

[LucyStoner]

Yes, the word "spoil" is a funny one, and I think not all that helpful bcause it could mean so many things. As far as I can tell, the intent in this case is to say that the default response of the "time -n" for tantrums or other bad behavior will not tend to cause the child to repeat the bad behavior in order to obtain the result.

 

What surprised me, or what I found doubtful, is that this seems to be presented in whatever the popular book is as a principle - a truth that will always be the case. And yet a lot of parents find at some point a child will engage in manipulative behavior of some kind that the parent has unintentionally reinforced. This doesn't seem to be something restricted to parents who ignore their kids or don't give positive attention, just pretty regular people. It doesn't even seem like it has to happen a lot to get the behavior reinforced with some kids.

If a tantrum is motivatated by attention seeking, it could well be that the child is making such a bid for attention because they are suffering from a lack of it. Some kids might not be able to communicate this directly. If my kids were throwing tantrums for attention (which is not our experience at this juncture), I'd think they probably needed more of my attention than they had been getting for some reason. And negative and positive attention alike are attention. There are some kids who can't get their mom or dad to pay attention to them in a positive way so they settle for a negative or way or the attention that surrounds the punishment dynamic.

 

Behavior is communication.

 

We don't really do time ins as lovey mommy attention time. My sons aren't that small anymore and are pretty well able to reset themselves when upset with diminishing amounts of assistance from me. A crabby period though could easily lead to some sort of family time like yoga or a game. Or it could lead to one or more of the boys and myself doing a meditation.

 

I swear I am not as much of a hippie as the demands of parenting two kids on the spectrum make me sound at times, lol.

Edited September 6, 2016 by LucyStoner

[AMJ]

There are definitely behaviors that seek attention in a negative way, and I think rewarding the child with extra attention at these times can establish a habit.

 

I would think children cannot be spoiled by attention if the attention is given in any other situation - just NOT as a reward for undesirable behavior. Attention itself is a positive and necessary thing, and I have observed that children who can usually fill their need for parental attention are less likely to throw fits or engage in negative attention seeking behavior than children who only receive attention if they misbehave.

 

 

We saw some extended family over the long weekend.  My 3-year-old nephew is definitely the baby of the family (youngest cousin by far), and last school year he spent some time in daycare (both parents working) in which he learned that the way to get quickest attention was to scream the loudest and tantrum the longest.  This year he doesn't go to daycare since BIL got a better job and they can afford for SIL to be a stay-at-home Mom, so SIL is now trying to train him out of this behavior.  We all ignore him completely when he screams or tantrums, but pay attention and talk with him when he brings his problems to us.

 

He decided to try something different, though, because he LIKES people coming to him instead of him coming to people.  I had just shown up at their house and I was paying attention to one of his sisters, so my young nephew moved to my clear line of sight just behind his sister and proceeded to droop dramatically and sigh dejectedly.  When I didn't respond to him right away he shifted his posture and sighed even louder.

 

I said Hi to him (we were all still in the "say Hi to everyone" stage of arrival) and asked for a hug, and he rolled mournful eyes at me, adopted a stricken-to-the-heart expression, and turned away (sideways, just enough to make it clear he turned away but not so far he couldn't watch my response).

 

I said quite matter-of-factly, "Oh, I see, you want to pout.  Okay, I'll leave you alone."

 

He promptly came over for a long, clingy, nobody-loves-me-but-AuntA hug.  After 3 seconds he was joyfully chasing after his cousins, since joining in the fun is the only way of getting their attention.

 

Aunt A can be fun, but boy, she just doesn't understand the proper response to a well-performed stage pout!

[AMJ]

I had a child with tantrums long past the time when it was socially acceptable.  One of the most common pieces of advice that I got was that it was because he just needed attention and was "crying out for it, any way he could."  

 

Bull.

 

It took years to figure out, but that child was just straight up overwhelmed by anything and nothing, and his tantrums had little to nothing to do with rational thought.  It's been a little over a year since a full blown tantrum, and we've made great strides, but sometimes still, I can see the bubbling inside, and I have to help talk him through those feelings.  They are not abut attention, but just internal feelings that he can't quite figure out how to manage.

 

 

I still get those tantrum-y feelings from time to time, usually when my senses have been overwhelmed by too much noise, too much crowd, too much heat, too much ANYTHING.  I've learned to recognize when it's coming and I tell my family my inner 2-year-old is about to come out.  We have all learned when this is about to happen I need an immediate break somewhere quiet and uncrowded, basically a few minutes respite from whatever overloaded my senses.  This is NOT something that will be grown out of.  I likely have undiagnosed sensory integration issues.

 

I sympathize with your child.  Been there.

[Bluegoat]

If a tantrum is motivatated by attention seeking, it could well be that the child is making such a bid for attention because they are suffering from a lack of it. Some kids might not be able to communicate this directly. If my kids were throwing tantrums for attention (which is not our experience at this juncture), I'd think they probably needed more of my attention than they had been getting for some reason. And negative and positive attention alike are attention. There are some kids who can't get their mom or dad to pay attention to them in a positive way so they settle for a negative or way or the attention that surrounds the punishment dynamic.

 

Behavior is communication.

 

We don't really do time ins as lovey mommy attention time. My sons aren't that small anymore and are pretty well able to reset themselves when upset with diminishing amounts of assistance from me. A crabby period though could easily lead to some sort of family time like yoga or a game. Or it could lead to one or more of the boys and myself doing a meditation.

 

I swear I am not as much of a hippie as the demands of parenting two kids on the spectrum make me sound at times, lol.

 

Well, I feel like I sound like kind of a hard ass, which is so far from what actually happens, so I have no trouble believing you are not that much of a hippy.

 

I agree that kids not getting much attention at all will sometimes accept negative attention and even try and elicit it.  And a good response to that is going to be, better attention generally.  Negative attention from the parent is only a motivator when something else is going on - there is a lack, or maybe something else is being reinforced without the parent realizing it.  (Like, expelling a kid who hates being in school. Maybe they don't like the parental response but the time out of school makes it seem worthwhile.)

 

And some kids are in need of coaching through an emotional outburst.

 

I just don't think that is reflective of every kind of inappropriate behavior, or that it is always mainly about attention seeking.  And applying posiive attention or other positive effects, to deal with negative behavior, without care, can, I think, work to reinforce the behavior in a pretty direct way.  So I think it pays to be aware of that dynamic too, so you can avoid it if it seems to be a factor.

 

For me, I tend to try not to be too lovey in direct response to negative behavior - I usually try to take a more neutral approach, or mildly disapproving, depending on the circumstances.  If I think there is a larger problem of being connected, I try and solve that apart from that specific incident.  Even talking through the problem often seems to be more effective when it isn't right at the time of the behavior.

 

ETA:  All of which is to say, a basic principle that says that attention can't "spoil" a child doesn't really sit right with me, if by spoil we mean it can't ever create problems with behavior.  It seems incredibly simplistic.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Bluegoat

[FaithManor]

I think children and parents can become locked in a negative feedback loop--when the child gets far more attention for bad behavior than positive attention, the child will act out and do things to get that attention, because they want and need to know that they are important to those they depend on.

 

I don't think that helping a child calm down encourages this type of loop when the child also receives plenty of positive attention. The loop happens when the child is largely ignored when everything is copacetic and going smoothly.

 

The same kind of thing can happen in relationships between adults.

This is how it was with two of my cousins. No attention until they did something awful so they made it their mission in life to be awful. My aunt was a useless, atrocious parent and my uncle would sit in a chair like a lump but at least he did not emit the high pitched screaming that my aunt did.

 

They had to keep ramping up their behavior in order to get noticed as their parents would acclimate to a level of dysfunction and begin ignoring again. So by the time they were 8 or 9, my parents had to ban the family from visiting due to safety issues.

 

They ended up dropping out of school, failing the GED twice a piece before finally passing, and getting into a lot of petty trouble with the law. One pullex his act together and kind of calmed down, remained employed. The other is a 48 year old, unemployable mess who still gets into shouting matches with his parents who support him and put up with it for fear he will hit them. Utter disaster.

 

It absolutely could be described as a perpetual, negative feedback loop that flourished and mutated.

 

I have no other relevant experience. None of my four had tantrums. My dh did nor as a child nor did I so we must have had lucky DNA.

[LucyStoner]

I think that the "common sense" that tantrums are mostly just for attention is nonsensical. I also don't see how exactly positive attention could cause the tantruming to take on a regular schedule. Perhaps "positive" bribes or treats but just a bit of quiet time with mom or dad? I haven't observed this dynamic play out. I don't consider bribes or catering to the child's tantrum fueled demands as being "positive" attention. Time in does not mean that crying for root beer generates the root beer...

[Bluegoat]

I think that the "common sense" that tantrums are mostly just for attention is nonsensical. I also don't see how exactly positive attention could cause the tantruming to take on a regular schedule. Perhaps "positive" bribes or treats but just a bit of quiet time with mom or dad? I haven't observed this dynamic play out. I don't consider bribes or catering to the child's tantrum fueled demands as being "positive" attention. Time in does not mean that crying for root beer generates the root beer...

 

I think for kids at a certain point, it isn't really a tantrum at all, as in it isn't really an emotional meltdown.  It's that they want something and are ticked off that things aren't going their way.  THat's pretty normal for everyone, but when you are five you might think throwing some kind of fit will be helpful, whereas we hope once someone is 15 they will not.  Much like a child who says "If I can't go to play with Max, I am going to run away."

 

Quiet time with mom or dad can be a motivator I think if it is mostly an issue of wanting to gain some "right now" attention, which sometimes kids want when it isn't really a good time.   But in the situations where I've seen kids use it more regularly, even when they were a little older,  it was often that they were avoiding something else, or putting it off.