Heather,
To say -" I agree with Linda, TM, Janet, Heather and the others who believe that the child needs to understand the effects of their negative behaviors on us. ' - implies that the others and me don't agree that the kid needs to understand the effects of his behaviors. ??
'Sorry you have missed the whole point I was making. Being conditional does not promote empathy or reflection on the part of the child. Teaching deductively does not teach empathy and perspective taking. The discussion was the most effective way to teach a lesson , inductively or deductively. '
You are right how the thread started, but the discussion evolved with me also raising the point that a kid can interpet it that your love is conditional. A poster mentioned that as a kid she felt her parent's love was conditional, although as an adult she knows her parents loved her unconditionally. It was suggested that the parent say she was happy to give a hug but needed time to deal with her emotions. The discussion also dealt with the notion by not giving the hug you would be helping the kid understand the effects of his behaviors. I said that this type of deductive discipline is likely to be perceived as making your love contingent or conditional on behavior , and further focuses on the consequence and the parent issuing the consequence and not the action. I suggested using inductive discipline , giving the hug and then through dialog questioning communicate with the child, explore the issues , help her come to conclusions. You have also shown that you are responsible for your feelings and that problems can be solved by' working with ', there is no need to ' teach a lesson' by ' doing to a kid , giving a consequence.
Allan