"Because I said so" vs. "You're not the boss of me"
Thursday, March 25, 2010 
We all know that children very frequently want to do things that their parents don't want them to do. But when mom or dad says "no," what makes kids likely to listen and what makes them likely to disobey?
A new study used child characters in role-playing situations and asked children aged four to seven years old to predict how children would act and feel when a parent forbid them from doing something. The study, Bridging Theory of Mind and the Personal Domain: Children's Reasoning About Resistance to Parental Control by Kristin Hansen Lagattuta, Larry Nucci and Sandra Leanne Bosacki, was published in the March/April 2010 issue of Child Development.
From ages 4 to 7, children’s predictions that the characters would comply with moral rules (such as prohibitions against stealing) and feel good about doing so rose significantly, suggesting that between these ages, children become increasingly aware of the limits to legitimate disobedience. In stark contrast, children of all ages predicted that the characters would frequently break parents’ rules when those rules intruded on the personal domain (clothing, friendship, and leisure activities) and that this disobedience would feel good, particularly when the desired activities were described as essential to the character’s sense of identity.
I found this research interesting from a number of perspectives. First, it may help some parents to understand more fully why "because I said so" just isn't a good enough reason when asking a child to do something. Second, being able to distinguish between moral rules versus rules intruding on the child's personal domain may help parents to be more reasonable with the types of rules that they set, resulting in less frustration on the part of the child and the parent. Third, and perhaps most importantly, if parents can distinguish between the two and apply that to their rule making, it will give them a framework within which to pass along moral values to their child while still providing plenty of room for the child to develop his or her own identity.
I think that as a starting point, if you can't come up with a better reason for your rule than "because I said so," then it probably isn't a rule worth making. But there is more to it than that and personally, I find this distinction between the moral versus the personal to be useful in trying to determine where to put my foot down and where to let go of my own preconceived notions of how my child should act (outside of the realm of moral vs. personal, safety is another place where I will put my foot down but still always need to question if I am being reasonable). That said, I think that even on the moral side, I need to question where I got my morals from and whether those are morals I want to pass on to my child.
How do you decide when to make and enforce rules and when to let your child decide? If you do have rules, do you find your children are more likely to break certain kinds of rules than others?
Image credit: Ed.ward on flickr
Reader Comments (33)
Interesting! My son just turned two, so our rules pretty much centre around safety and manners.
When I was growing up, my parents never said 'no' unless they could give us a reason. I've been starting to train myself to do that and it really makes me question my motives. Often, when I want to say 'no' the reason is selfish - "no, you can't paint now because I don't want to clean it up" or "no, you can't wear that because I think it will reflect badly on me as a mother/I don't want others to judge me." Selfish reasons are not always bad reasons, but it is an interesting exercise in checking my own motives as a parent and my expectations of his behaviour.
I'm a firm believer that the more you say 'no', the more disobedient children are likely to be. So, unless I have a really good reason for saying no, I don't. As much as possible, I believe in giving our daughter as much choice as possible. And sometimes circumstances dictate that the choice has to be pretty minimal (either you do what I ask, or we stay in this spot until you do - not much of a choice - but still better than using my superior strength and size!). Although it may seem way too permissive to some - I don't use time outs with our daughter because I don't think that punishment is necessary or even any more effective than negotiation. So far, it seems to be working really well for us. Despite being a strong willed, stubborn toddler, 99% of the time if I ask her to do something she will do it without any dramas.
I'd say there's a fourth type of rule as well, what I think of as societal rules. These are ones that let us live together like speaking politely to other people. I think these need a lot of thought because they are nuanced - it's very important to me that my children are polite, but that doesn't mean they have to listen quietly to things they disagree with. They just need to express their disagreement in a polite way. It's like you say about moral rules - just because they are the ones we've grown up with and are comfortable with doesn't mean we should keep them.
I don't think 'because I said so' should ever be the sole reason for a rule, although I have occasionally said it. But that's because there are some things that are too difficult to explain at that exact moment. Whenever I've used it, I have to question myself that there is another 'real' reason behind it, even if I'm not sharing that with my children at the time.
This research may also point out that when kids are very young, they cannot really understand the need for rule and parents should expect them to disobey sometimes, rather than getting upset with them. In the same way we don't expect a 4-year-old to understand nutrition and we patiently take the time to teach it to them, we need to be patient with moral rules and realize that getting them takes time and maturity.
Yet another great insight, Annie!
this is a GREAT and useful post, THANKS! I have found that showing my kids the respect to EXPLAIN myself really pays off in the long run. My eldest is a teenager now, and is actually starting to understand and agree with a lot of the rules that she used to question. Hopefully I can figure out how to get from defiance to understanding to compliance more quickly with the younger kids, because the rebellion stage sucks!
There's only one rule around here: Honour thy mother and father.
Because Jesus said so.
Amazing. Mine turns one next weekend, so she is just learning what "no" even means. I have started to think about when I want to use "no" so it doesn't get overused. This fits with what I've been thinking about - where you do draw the "no" lines. Thanks!
This is a very interesting and useful discussion, and I agree pretty much with what you wrote, Annie, especially this:
"I think that as a starting point, if you can’t come up with a better reason for your rule than “because I said so,” then it probably isn’t a rule worth making."
Some time ago I made a commitment to my children that I would always give them a reason for what I asked (or in some cases, required) them to do. They might not like the reason or agree with it, but I made no undertakings that they would - only that one would be provided. 6 months ago we also struck a deal, which both my almost-7-year-old and almost-5-year-old have embraced, that if I ask for instant compliance because of safety / risk, they will follow my instructions and we can talk about the reasons later. This deal was one of the best ones I ever made as a parent. It has made things like our bike ride to school purely enjoyable as I can rely on the girls to stop when I ask them to, and so on.
The commitment to provide a reason has made me much more self-aware of my parenting style and, I think, less authoritarian even than I was before (and I wasn't very). And I'm OK with it if sometimes the reason is a selfish one - such as, just this afternoon, when the kids wanted to get their dollhouse out to play with and I said no, because (as I told them) we are preparing to leave for a trip and I did not want any new messes being created as I was already tired and had packing to do. It *can* be about me and my capacity sometimes, and that's alright too, and my kids usually accept this, because it's not always this way.
Thanks for this, again stimulating post. I do agree with you, just a few thoughts:
- What you refer to as "morality" is, in fact, I believe, better referred to as "ethics". The term and very concept of morality is very problematic in raising children, with its overtones of right and wrong and its suggestion (in practice) that parents are ultimate arbiters thereof. If we were to limit ourselves to passing on codes of behavior whose social utility can be appreciated, rather than superego-charged value judgments, it would already be (i) less manipulative and (ii) far easier for the child to understand. It would also keep us out of the personal domain where ethical considerations do not apply. It would further make it clear that there is no numinous overarching force supposed to determine our behavior under all and every possible circumstance; only practical prescriptions, guidelines and reasoning, apart from which full liberty prevails. In the world of "morality" there is frequently no meaningful liberty at all.
- If "because I said so" is outlawed, then even more so we should outlaw "because God says so". If God wants to say something, let him say it himself.
- However, as a practical matter, I do find it hard to always find a reasoning for behavioral guidelines which a small child can understand. And I think that reasoning what one says is good in that it shows respect and consideration, and allows for the possibility of being wrong, but it is not really the most important point. I believe children need to be able to *trust* their parents. In the early years they don't really have a lot of choice. I would not have a problem to say "please just trust me on this". It is not an appeal to arbitrary authority and riding roughshod over their preferences and individuality, it is just how the parent-child relationship is supposed to work - children should be able to trust their parents and not have to bear the impossible burden of figuring everything out for themselves.
So yes, at least have a reasoning and be prepared to offer it, but don't rely on persuasion and an impossible because unequal dialogue - it's ok to ask them to take things on trust. (and also, don't make up totally ridiculous reasonings referring to fantasy figures like Father Christmas or the tooth fairy just to end the conversation - that is the same thing as "because I say so", just in different dress and less honest - once they figure out the flaws in your reasoning, you will lose trust and credibility)
I never thought I'd say "because I said so" until I did. And it wasn't that there weren't actually good reasons for what I was saying -- here, we try to limit no to what is dangerous, unhealthy, dissrespectful of others. But I also have a child who can argue the most valid points (e.g. "no, I won't get hurt doing this dangerous thing!") and in frustration it has come down to asking him to just do what I say! :/ No, it doesn't really work! Occasionally I wish we did time-outs or punishment, just to have *something* to fall back on, but we don't, because we don't believe they work or have long-term value. It is hard sometimes to remember this is a life-long process, and that children are individuals -- and that we don't really want them to learn to follow blindly. But, it sure can be a challenge sometimes! I also think it is possible to explain too much -- I know because I do it :)
I agree, I am not a fan of "because Santa is watching/won't bring you presents" type reasoning. As to God, well, I guess if you are raising your children in a faith (we are not), that would make sense to a point, but I still suspect the children will eventually say "but why?". And I think that's a good thing, personally.
Family Matters:
Yes, that is true.
The reason that this study looked at 4 to 7 year olds is that it was the age during which children seemed to be able to start truly understanding why certain rules existing and internalizing those reasons. Before that age, children should not be expected to be able to overcome their strong desire to do something that is forbidden. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start teaching them when they are younger, but expecting obedience (and punishing disobedience) is not all that helpful.
I disagree about the time out, because that's been a very effective discipline method for my two children. But I absolutely agree about saying no too much.
We have a few hard and fast rules in our house and they mostly have to do with safety (bike helmets) and manners (no name calling). But I definitely pick my battles. And I think something that was really helpful for me was letting go of caring what other people (strangers) think of me or my child. If my daughter wants to wear a pink skirt, princess tiara and her rainboots to the store, I let her. It's just not worth battling with her over something so silly because other people might look at us funny. I give both kids choices when it comes to insignificant scenarios, and our days are much more pleasant. I wrote about it here: http://attachmentparenting.org/blog/2010/01/27/the-power-of-choice/
As for which rules they break--I find it's mostly a developmental matter. My son knows he isn't allowed to jump on the couch, but he has a hard time overcoming the impulse to do it because it's fun. And impulse control at 5 is just not well developed.
I touched on this slightly in http://www.examiner.com/x-41141-Davenport-Attachment-Parenting-Examiner~y2010m3d25-No-no-doesnt-mean-yes" rel="nofollow">an article I published yesterday. Mine was targeted toward younger kids, but it was about giving them positive choices and providing options for what they can do instead of telling them what they can't. My mom was a because-I-said-so type and I resented her for it until the day I moved out of the house. I grew up believing that kids didn't have an opinion or at least that it doesn't matter, and to this day I have trouble expressing emotion.
Good post!
I'm basically at the same exact place as Sarah (in the first comment). I often find myself saying "no" then think, "well, but why? What harm is there in letting him do X or Y?" So try to say Yes more often.
I've read both How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and LIsten So Kids Will Talk, and P.E.T. (Parent Effectiveness Training) and they both present ways to talk to kids, how to choose which rules are important enough to lay down and enforce, and how to negotiate with kids so that rules can be adjusted and feel fair to everyone. I'm hoping to be able to follow these principles as D grows up.
This made me laugh! Good one.
My child just turned 5, and right now she is very contrarian. I've read that this is normal, and that most children go through periods of rebellion around age 2, age 5 and then in adolescence. So, at the moment, my kid is breaking EVERY rule, and it's sort of driving me crazy. I'm just trying to maintain perspective and let go of the little things.
For me the biggest challenge in this area is delineating rules that are merely about my own convenience or sanity or personal issues. For instance, the other day my daughter was sticking stickers on the outside of my car. I didn't want her to do that, because I don't want the stickers to stay there and become grungy and attract dirt and dust. It's my car, and I think I should be allowed to say what does and doesn't get stuck to it. But it's not truly harmful or dangerous, it's just kind of inconsiderate that my daughter listened to me and then completely ignored my request. These are the areas where I don't always have good answers.
Deb:
I think societal rules can be tricky as a category, because I think some moral/ethical rules are societal in nature, as are some of the ones in the personal domain.
I agree that rules around how you deal with other people are very nuanced. That's why I'd prefer to look at those not so much as rules, but more as teaching your child to respect other people. We don't have specific rules about it, but we do model appropriate behaviour and tell them why it is important to respect others.
Amber:
For me, that comes into the domain of respecting other people and their belongings, which I would put under the "moral/ethical" category. I don't always have the "answer", but I generally like to try to relate it to how they would feel if their property was disrespected.
I find this interesting, not necessarily from the perspective of a parent of a toddler (my experiences there are similar to what has already been shared), but from the perspective of a parent who has been and is going to be raising a teenager. I tended to run into "because I said so" much more frequently as a teenager with my own folks and it was frustrating as hell, particularly if the issue was about something about which I had more knowledge.
An example (because don't all teenagers think they know more than their parents?) would be when my stepfather would prohibit me from using AIM (AOL's instant messenger program) on the grounds that "it keeps trying to install AOL on the computer," when in reality it was only starting up as part of the system startup. He furthermore blamed the computer's slow-running issues on my internet browsing, even though through judicious use of history searching and antivirus/spyware programs I was able to determine that it was largely the websites he visited which were infecting our computer. And he would not listen to my explanation, even though it was the correct one, which led to many fights over computer usage that usually wound up with me frustrated and angry because he'd invoke his final authority as the "parent," which usually provoked a snarly "You're not my REAL dad, I don't have to listen to YOU!" from me ... and, well. I'm sure you can see where this is going.
When we get around to parenting our teen, this is the type of situation I'd like to be able to avoid. I don't want it to come down to a "because I said so" as last resort, and I want to be open to knowing that there are some things that my teen may be more familiar with than I am, without losing either an open path of communication between him and I or losing whatever perception of authority exists that encourages him to respect the boundaries I'm requesting for his safety and/or sanity. I'm open to dialogue about those boundaries, but definitely plan to have hard-and-fast rules, and I'm not sure how I'll handle things if he chooses to willfully disobey those.
Barbara Coloroso wrote that if it's life threatening, morally threatening or unhealthy a parent should intervene, but otherwise it's good to let kids make choices and experience the consequences for themselves. This falls under the "pick your battles" umbrella for me: squashing your baby sister? not ok. wearing two mismatched boots, both of which are left feet? go ahead, kid!
Like Amber, I have a hard time with the somewhat mild yet annoying behaviours: not picking up toys, refusing to get dressed or use the bathroom when she needs to go. Not exactly life threatening, but areas I'd like her to develop good habits. That's when it's most tempting to pull out the "because I say so" card, but it often just turns into a power struggle.
Hi, I am the first author for the study and I came across this interesting discussion. We have run similar studies not just with moral rules (you should not steal or hurt others) but also with social conventions/family rules (e.g., not eating dessert before dinner, not getting up and playing after bedtime, respecting other people's property) and safety rules (e.g., not running into the street, not climbing up a high tree, not touching wild animals). These kinds of rules are all treated very similarly by children. Between the ages of 4 and 7 children increasingly understand that inhibiting your own desires to abide by these kinds of rules can make you feel positive emotions. They also increasingly explain these emotions in relation to rule obligations ("she feels good because she listened to her mom's rule") and potential future consequences (e.g., "because if he did run into the street he might have gotten hit by a car"). So, you are all pinpointing the kinds of rules where parents should in most cases exert more control! Also, what may be of interest to parents . . . other research I have done shows that kids are most likely to judge that people feel good following rules when they thought of the rule themselves (that is, did not have a parent standing there telling them what to do) and did the right thing. They are least likely to say that kids feel good following rules when a parent stands there and orders them what to do. This is why explaining the reasons for rules to your children is key: it helps children internalize the meaning of rules (why they are imporant) and it helps them learn to self-regulate their own behavior.
As I only have one child (and she's only just about to turn 2) I'm wary about pronouncing myself to be sure about any parenting style! I have a feeling that this is the easy part, and things are going to get a whole lot more challenging as she gets older and boundary setting is more important. And while I get that time outs are an effective tool for many parents - I've recently read about how (especially with young children) slapping vs time outs vs talking are no different in terms of effectiveness. So given that, I've opted for the talking. And that choice is informed by my daughter's age, her temperament as well as my sensibilities. I am also striving to give her choices when things matter as well as when they are inconsequential.
Very interesting. My daughter, now 5 yo, is the typical example of a kid who doesn't listen very well. She is not the docile type. It took me some time to adjust and I know now how to talk to her. Dad is more the "because I said so" type and gets nothing out of this. My kid is very sweet and caring, she is good with others and this is what counts at the end of the day. We hug a lot and and she knows that "No" doesn't mean "I don't love you anymore" or "I don't trust you". My son is 15 months and seems to listen more, at least for now!
"Because it's getting on my last nerve" is actually a pretty decent reason in my book. Leaving toys strewn all over the living room is not a crime or a danger, but it IS highly irritating that the whole fam damily views me as its personal cleaning lady.
Actually, I'm a step down from a cleaning lady-- they get paid, and people at least put their dirty underwear in the hamper before she arrives.
I digress. Obliging them to use the potty falls into the same category. Watching a six year old frantically do the peepee dance while he says, "no, I don't hafta go" right in front of you is enough to make you tear your hair out.
Plus, if he loses his pee all over the living room floor, guess who gets to clean it up? ahahahaha!
Boozehound:
I don't think something has to fall into the realm of being a crime in order to fall into the moral/ethical realm. Respect for others is a moral issue to me.
I agree. And toys all over can be dangerous (ever step on a Lego block?) And urine on the floor could be unhealthy -- dirty at the very least. I think picking up toys and not peeing on the floor (within reason, accidents happen of course) are valid expectations to have!
Nah. Neither Legos nor a smallish amount of pee is apt to kill you or land you in the hospital. They are annoying as hell, though. Life with kids so often is full of minor aggravations that stack up to total self-abnegation if you don't draw a line somewhere, though.
[...] the boss of me” Published March 31, 2010 Parenting , Research Leave a Comment “Because I said so” vs. “You’re not the boss of me” [...]
[...] Blog post “Because I said so” vs. “You’re not the boss of me” www.phdinparenting.com We all know that children very frequently want to do things that their [...]
It's absolutely crucial to distinguish for WHOM the rules are imposed, and for why. This requires honesty. The child's future psychology depends upon that honesty.
It is a fact that a large proportion of Societies rules are imposed and whilst spun as 'for your own good' turn out under the glare of a decent critical analysis to be for the benefit of those who impose the rules... eating with a knife and fork is un-natural, eating with ones hands is natural.... an adult focussed on imposing the use of cutlery rather than allowing the child to eat (and the parent being willing to clean the mess up afterwards) misses the point completely - eating is about food and nourishment, not about table manners.
One has to recognise that common sense is innate to all living organisms, and that our own childhoods may hold masked experiences that are unconsciously informing our present day actions. For example if as a child, if one was thwarted in any of ones natural developmental stages, it makes it very difficult to recognise that stage in our own children and if there is any negativity associated with that stage the adult may well attempt to control the child as he or she moves through that stage to manage his or her (the parents) own inner reality and will justify it by blaming the child. This is very, very common.
I experienced this with my children some 18 years ago, and was able to interrupt that dynamic, with their help at times... they could SEE and FEEL my irritation long before I was even aware of it. Enabling them to communicate what they were sensing required that I listen, pay attention to them and do so in a reliable way. We even got to the point where they could say to me 'Dad! you're beginning to be a grumpy again" and I would stop, FEEL and re-engage with a little more awareness.
It's also important to have a sense of The Natural Child and the biologically determined realities of The Natural Child that this Society does not meet, and following on from that a sense of how to meet those realities.
Babies and infants can show us (or we can learn) lots about the innate, the natural, the intrinsic human qualities precisely because they are less conditioned than we are and because they can sense or feel injustice that much more keenly because they do not rationalise it away. It is of course intensely frustrating for infants as they don't have the languaging, and we the parents lack the empathy - a toxic combination. Which if it continues forces the child to ramp up the emotional expression in order to be heard, and when that becomes a habit, when it occurs often enough for the child to become habituated... ouch! As seen in supermarkets all over the world.
The Natural Child is, biologically speaking, expecting to meet with parents and a community that is deeply empathetic. Every experience impacts the developing neurology within the child's brain and throughout their body. On birth the child HAS to meet the appropriate biologically determined experiences that help the child to learn or 'write' the appropriate neurology for that empathy, and for many other qualities. This rarely occurs within the hospital setting. It certainly does not occur in Kindergadren or School. And for most parents you can be assured it has not happened for them either, so they cannot recognise the need because they too have 'adjusted'...
This is a huge issue.
We can learn to tune into our intuition and our empathy (empathy is a FEELING rather than a logical understanding - if in place it will support a deeper ability to understand, if not.....) and to trust it, to discern between natural intuition and make believe, to listen to the natural child and respond appropriately. It is a big task, especially as for most people in the West there is a huge dichotomy between parenting and 'careers' or 'work' which are seen as separate... yet the welfare of the future is UTTERLY dependent upon the quality of parenting, and as yet parenting is the LEAST supported aspect of modern life.
Mothers work unpaid. How crazy is that?
In fact there is solid research that shows that lack of empathy in parents or damage to the natural empathetic learning is directly related to the emergence of violence and the need to control.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
Interesting discussion. My son is 2, and like most 2 year olds, feels the need to push his limits and boundaries to find out where they are. As much as possible, I like to give him choices and alternatives, as opposed to just saying "no" (though I will admit that recently the combination of sleep deprivation and hormones that come with being 36 weeks preggo have left me with very limited patience). For instance, jumping on the sofa is one of our big issues. Rather than just leave it at "no jumping on the sofa," it's followed by "if you want to jump, you can jump on the floor." 99% of the time, he either sits down on the sofa to behave nicely, or, he climbs off and jumps on the floor. Either of those options is fine, and he gets to choose which one he wants. The small fraction of the time he keeps jumping, he gets a time out. But if you ask him in advance "What happens if you jump on the sofa?" he can tell you he gets time out. He can also tell you that we don't jump on the sofa because it's not safe. So he understands why (of course, what a two year old really understands about the concept of "safe" is debatable, but at least the foundation is there for him to understand more as he gets older).
I've also had good success with having a short little talk with him to lay out the rules and the consequences of breaking them. For instance, he is a very independent little boy and likes to walk BY HIMSELF!! He also likes to run away from mommy if something more exciting is around. Just this morning, we went to the children's museum. Before we went in, I sat down with him and told him that he could walk by himself, but there was no running away from mommy, and when mommy says "stop" (I prefer to use "stop" vs. "no" when he does run away) he needs to stop right away. If he doesn't, he then has to hold mommys hand and he can't walk by himself anymore. He didn't run away from me the entire time we were there. And at the restaurant for lunch afterwards, when he started running away, he stopped as soon as I asked. In return, he got to hold on to his independence. I think understanding rules and consequences at the outset also leads to better behavior. He knows what the rules are, and what the consequences are of breaking them.
I grew up with no rules at home other than to treat others as I would want to be treated. I had lots of autonomy and freedom. I decided what to eat, when to sleep, whether to do homework or not, when I would visit friends and how long I would stay out for, etc. But I always did the 'right' thing as my mother, from as far back as I can remember, would always be chatting to me and getting my opinion on morals, how people feel when others act in various ways, etc. She had a very strong sense of right and wrong but didn't push that on to me. She just conversed about her take on things. There was no need for rules. The important lessons aren't learnt in the heat of the moment when a parent says 'because I said so', they are learnt through lots of discussion round the dinner table or on long Sunday afternoon walks and I think this method can be started when children are young. My mother was a single low income parent so although I'd say probably quite stressful at times, I don't think it was as I self regulated myself because I was trusted to do so. I think parents underestimate the capabilities of children to self regulate in the right environment.