3 ms·
Unfortunately, the primary source material is behind a paywall, so I can't reference it directly. Personally, I have a negative gut reaction to guilting kids i
by frossie 17y ago
Unfortunately, the primary source material is behind a paywall, so I can't reference it directly.
Personally, I have a negative gut reaction to guilting kids into doing what you want. I think it is a technique that is manipulative and not in a good way. Let me use the litmus test of parenting techniques: would you let someone else use that technique on your child? I would be uncomfortable if someone guilted my child into doing something against her better instincts.
I can't help noting that guilt is used here to set up a negative association with a past misdeed. It is possible to do that with a variety of other unpleasant-to-the-child techniques, such as time outs, confiscating privileges etc.
Also, their longtitudinal survey went up to about 5 years of age. This is a time where kids still haven't completely internalised the reasons for good behaviour (eg. social harmony) hence the need for more Pavlovian techniques. It's not clear to me that this scales to, for example, teenagers.
Finally, there could be some giant selection effect here: kids who feel guilt are probably more socially sensitive than other kids, and so are more likely to behave in a way that does not cause waves.
Difficult to say without reference to the primary material. Man, journal paywalls suck.
- w1ntermute 17y agojournal paywalls suck I have never understood why research funded by taxpayers' money is not available to the general public free of charge. Does anybody know why this system still exists? Edit: is http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2726045 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27... the article? It says it's a "draft" (lacks the publisher's final edits) version, but it should provide you with the information you need. Edit 2: PDF: http://omploader.org/vMjd0OQ/nihms129980.pdf http://omploader.org/vMjd0OQ/nihms129980.pdf
- frossie 17y agoHuge thanks for digging that up. Not surprisingly, it doesn't say what one might think after reading the OP, with its mention of Catholic guilt. First, the term guilt is used here to describe any kind of emotional discomfort (eg. anxiety) that is associated with transgressions. Secondly, the authors accept that effortful control (elsewhere called self-regulation - what you or I might think of as internalising the rules) has a large positive effect on children's behaviour. What they set out to do is to see how they play out in different children. I am now going to grossly paraphrase the rest because I doubt anybody is still reading this: If the kid is a nervous wreck, it doesn't matter how self-regulated they are because they are going to behave anyway. If the kid is tough as nails, you had better hope they have internalised the rules or else you have a troublemaker on your hands.
- teeja 17y agoAgreed that F.U.D. is old-fashioned/crude compared to reason/responsibility for a parenting tool. If the consequences of actions are known ahead of time, and the consequences are 'dealt' every time, there's no need to toy with strong emotions. External guilt plays with self-esteem, which is hard enough for kids. It's bad enough goofing up and feeling that feeling without having someone tell you you're an idiot and will burn in hell forever. (Lots of kids die over that stuff.)