Kids and delayed gratification...

[alter ego]

small children dont have the reasoning to understand that a need will be met shortly.
i think this begins to develop around the age of 4, with the frontal lobe activity increase (correct me if im wrong, im on my phone in the car with a sleeping toddler).
i think by school age they are able to understand that food is on its way, but still couldnt wait more than 30 minutes at the most.
by puberty they have the skills for patience, complex reasoning (ie if i eat junk now i cant fit in dinner too) plus the ability to meet thier own needs.

 

[parentastic]

In life, as adults, even things that we consider "needs" (like hunger, loneliness) cannot always be met instantly. Is part of learning deferred gratification not also learning that even fundamental needs sometimes need to wait?

Essentially, the crux of the matter in this case is that the adult brain is already mature while the young child brain is developing.
As an adult, your brain already has the capacity to understand that you have to delay a need and why this is happening, without hindering its development or having consequences on the attachment with your loved ones.

As a developing child, you depend on your caregiver for your needs. If a basic need is not met quickly, it erodes the relationship with the caregiver and it develops what psychologist call an "insecure attachment". Insecure attachment causes the brain to develop unequally on the left and right hemisphere, and causes the child to focus all of his development efforts toward getting his fundamental needs met, rather than developing his brain through exploration and curiosity.

With each passing day, the child is constructing his personality, his dare for exploration, his self-esteem, his self-identity, and so many other things. And to do this properly, the child needs to feel completely safe and loved unconditionally.

There is so much more to say about this, but I need to go or I'll miss my train ;-) I'll try to post more about this later.

Thank you. I will certainly continue to post my questions as they come up, and will appreciate feedback from you.

Anytime! I am happy if I can make a difference.

One more thing: those studies only make a correlation link between delayed gratification and later success. They note that if a child has developed delayed gratification early on, they tend to fare better. But they do not know if it's a causality or correlation link.
It's well possible, as said alter-ego, that they tend to fare better later in life simply because their ability to delay gratification is a sign that their frontal lobes are maturing faster than the average.
However, imposing delayed gratification on their needs might very well hinder the very brain development that makes it so interesting for success in life...

 

[singledad]

Interesting...
I am interested to hear what else you have to say

 

[parentastic]

Interesting...
I am interested to hear what else you have to say

Hello again! I am in the middle of a huge paper for the Master degree, but I need the break and I wanted to respond, so I'll write a little more on this thread before escaping back to my current hell

Back to attachment parenting and delayed gratification.
First, please forgive me for a bit of dry theory below. I hope you will find it interesting!

There are four "patterns" of attachment we can detect between children and parents, depending on how the parents are handling their responses to children's needs:

<I>Secure attachment</I> develops when the parent mostly responds to each and every need their children have, in a reliable and expected way, without delay. The parent's consistency of response is triggered by the child. Each time the child has a need, (not a want, that's different!), it is immediately responded and tend to.

Children in secure attachments:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Are autonomous, want to do everything themselves without help</LI>
  <LI>
• Do not hesitate to contradict their parents</LI>
  <LI>
• Explore easily even if the parent is out of sight</LI>
  <LI>
• Take their parents as models as often as possible</LI>
  <LI>
• Want to learn from their parents</LI>
  <LI>
• Are curious and want to touch and try anything</LI>
  <LI>
• When confronted to strangers or to an unknown scary situation, tend to retreat back to their parent's arms easily for safety</LI>
  <LI>
• As soon as parent is around and look relaxed and smiling, they no longer feel stressed even in a new and strange situation</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend to develop their left and right hemisphere simultaneously in a balanced way</LI>

</LIST>

<I>Insecure attachment</I> comes into two different kinds: insecure / avoidant and insecure / anxious.

An <I>insecure / avoidant attachment</I> relationship develops between parent and child when the parent is distant and cold, when the parent does not respond to a child's needs unless they are extreme needs. Parents who act that way usually over-reason their intentions and basically shut down their emotions and instincts. For instance, children are left to cry on their own at night to "teach" them not to cry; they learn that their needs simply don't really matter that much and they the more they ask for it, the less they have it. So they learn not to ask.

Children in avoidant attachment:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Fail to develop autonomy</LI>
  <LI>
• Do not explore their environment as much</LI>
  <LI>
• Learn to shut down their own emotions</LI>
  <LI>
• Learn to "exaggerate" their needs in order to get their parents to finally react and take care of them</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend not to retreat to their parent's safety when scared or confronted to a strange situation</LI>
  <LI>
• Learn not to cry</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend to succeed better at kindergarten at first because they socialize better (since they do not suffer from separation anxiety) but get quickly distanced by others later as they fail to connect at a deeper level with people</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend not to get reassured by their parent's presence</LI>
  <LI>
• Develop superficial relationships with their parents and later with their life partner (i.e., looking for people as distant or unengaged as their parent to form love relationship with).</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend to over-develop their left brain hemisphere and under-develop their right hemisphere</LI>

</LIST>
Insecure / Anxious attachment is sort of the flip side of the other one and it develops when a parent is intrusive, too present, and responds to a child's needs on the parent's term rather than on the child's terms. Since the parent responds to the needs in a way that is unreliable or makes no sense to the child, they become anxious and smothered.

Children in insecure / anxious attachment:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Never know what to expect: too much or too little</LI>
  <LI>
• Develop anxiety</LI>
  <LI>
• Become clingy, by fear of not getting their needs met later (better take it now!)</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend not to explore the world or let go of their parent's sights</LI>
  <LI>
• Get smothered by too much attention at times</LI>
  <LI>
• Make huge tantrums frequently</LI>
  <LI>
• Fail to develop autonomy</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend to over develop their right hemisphere and under-develop their left hemisphere</LI>

</LIST>
Finally, the last attachment type is called <I>disorganized attachment</I>. It develops when parents are either neglecting or abusing. It is what happens when children are confronted to an impossible paradox: when scared or in pain, they are programmed to seek reassurance and care from their parents - the very people who are causing the pain and fear in the first place. Since there are no solutions to this paradox, the brain develops <I>coping mechanisms</I> as a way to survive with the impossible situation.

Children in disorganized attachments:

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Can act in a happy way one moment and develop triggers and extreme distress at other moments</LI>
  <LI>
• May develop split personalities and/or multiple personalities</LI>
  <LI>
• Repress memories of pain / fear to avoid being confronted to it</LI>
  <LI>
• Become survivors, finding way to attend to their own needs at a bare minimum without help</LI>
  <LI>
• Tend to develop their left and right hemisphere in independent way, without an integration of emotions and thoughts</LI>
  <LI>
• Because of the random nature of coping mechanisms, and the fact that no two child will come up exactly with the same solution to an impossible situation, it's hard to predict the kid of damage this will cause, both on short and long term, but their are clear patterns of abuse over the long run.</LI>

</LIST>
Of course, no parent is perfectly in one or another; everyday, most parents acts in ways that promote a little bit of every type of attachment. But there are patterns, and in the long term, children develop one kind of attachment predominantly to the others.

So, singledad, Do you recognize yourself in any of these?

 

[singledad]

I am in the middle of a huge paper for the Master degree, but I need the break and I wanted to respond, so I'll write a little more on this thread before escaping back to my current hell

LOL - Should I apologize for distracting you, or say I'm happy to help?

But seriously, thank you. I find that very interesting. Of course, I would assume that most children develop as a combination of these, with, as you say - one being dominant?

May develop split personalities and/or multiple personalities

Quote question, somewhat off topic but of interest to me - I know that DID is real, but do you believe that MPD is? I know there is some controversy with some psychiatrists accusing other psychiatrists of "manufacturing" MPD by suggesting it to vulnerable patients and so forth... I'm trying to find out more about it, but I have trouble finding objective information or studies. Everything seems to be aimed either at proving that it doesn't exist, or at proving that it does...

So, singledad, Do you recognize yourself in any of these?

Yes, I do. And I don't think I have to tell you which.

Out of interest, and to test some other theories I've come across, I'd like to ask you more questions, although I'm not sure if I'm comfortable having this discussion on an open forum. Perhaps you can let me know when you have finished that paper of yours, and I can PM you?

 

[parentastic]

LOL - Should I apologize for distracting you, or say I'm happy to help?

Believe me, I need the distraction!
I feel like I am in labor and giving birth right now.. I wish I could just go sleep now, (2:18 AM for me now) but it's for tomorrow... well technically today! It's good to get my mind off "Learning processes models" and patterns of transformational learning for a while...

But seriously, thank you. I find that very interesting. Of course, I would assume that most children develop as a combination of these, with, as you say - one being dominant?

Most parents use a combination of behaviors that are linked to one or the other of these attachment patterns. So their children end up mostly developing one pattern or another. For some parents, it's very clear how they behave and for some other it's mixed.
Even the best parents in the world cannot <I>always</I> act in a way that promotes secure attachment, but if they do most of the time, the relationship should still be securely attached.

The exception is the abuse and neglect. It doesn't take much to seriously mess up the patterns of attachment in a child.
Thankfully, with a lot of care and patience and consistency, it's also reversible.

Quote question, somewhat off topic but of interest to me - I know that DID is real, but do you believe that MPD is?

Well, since I am not a psychologist and I mostly deal with prevention and non-pathological patterns, I can't give you an <I>official</I> answer about this.
I can tell you that in the DSM-IV (the 4th edition of the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorder, published by the American Psychological Association), they used to call it MPD (Multiple personality disorder) and now with the new version of the DSM-V, they decided to replace the term with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), but I am not sure why. I am not aware of the differences between the two.

What I can tell you that, is that my very first girlfriend had been sexually abused when she was 11 years old, and as a Significant Other, I have personally witnessed the effect of several of these coping mechanisms, including a separate personality appearing sometimes, under some stress or under certain triggers. So I certainly know for a fact that it is real, whatever name we give to it.
It's terrible to realize how deeply damaged one can end up being, and for so many years, when living such deep traumas, or the sheer anger and helplessness of a loving partner in front of so much pain, even after sop many years.

Yes, I do. And I don't think I have to tell you which.

Indeed
But there is a 5th one I didn't tell you about, and you might like this one.
It's called <I>earned secure </I>and it applies more specifically to adults.
It's when we have managed, after years of effort sometimes, to overcome our pattern of attachment to become secure and provide secure attachment to our own children, despite not having it ourselves in our youth.

Out of interest, and to test some other theories I've come across, I'd like to ask you more questions, although I'm not sure if I'm comfortable having this discussion on an open forum. Perhaps you can let me know when you have finished that paper of yours, and I can PM you?

Please, by all mean, my mailbox is always open to you. Just ask away. I cannot guarantee how fast I might be able to respond, but be sure I will.

 

[singledad]

Believe me, I need the distraction!

In that case I'm happy to help

Well, since I am not a psychologist and I mostly deal with prevention and non-pathological patterns, I can't give you an <I>official</I> answer about this.
I can tell you that in the DSM-IV (the 4th edition of the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorder, published by the American Psychological Association), they used to call it MPD (Multiple personality disorder) and now with the new version of the DSM-V, they decided to replace the term with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), but I am not sure why. I am not aware of the differences between the two.

Damn. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some objective studies But never mind, I won't give up just yet.

For interest sake - MPD, the way it was always described, was a specific manifestation of DID. Basically, one can dissociate, thus exhibiting signs of DID, without actually developing distinct, separate personalities. One just "goes away", without anyone else taking your place... It used to be called "Depersonalization disorder", though they've probably changed it too.

Although IMO the DSM is the product of psychiatrists practicing what sometimes seems to be their favorite pastime - building little boxes with fancy labels on them and sorting human behaviour into it by force, mostly to hide the fact that they really don't have a clue why people act the way they do (You may notice that I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the psychiatric profession )

But if you actually saw a separate personality appear, I will add your vote to "Yes, it exists". Thank you.

But there is a 5th one I didn't tell you about, and you might like this one.
It's called <I>earned secure </I>and it applies more specifically to adults.
It's when we have managed, after years of effort sometimes, to overcome our pattern of attachment to become secure and provide secure attachment to our own children, despite not having it ourselves in our youth.

Yes. I do like it. That is one box I would like to sort myself into, although brutal honesty would force me to admit that its a work in progress...

 

[PianoLover]

I've just had a really interesting conversation with a colleague about teaching our kids about delayed gratification. She was of the opinion that by responding instantly to our children's needs, we condition them to expect instant gratification, and that we should rather make them wait. I don't quite agree with that,

I don't agree with that at all, my mum would never respond to me immediately when I needed her attention and as a consequence whenever my parents asked me to do something I was ALWAYS like "In a minute ..." I'd never do it right away. I internalised the behaviour and reflected it back, and that's completely average - kids learn from the model you present. If you're going to put off doing things for them with no good reason to they might even perceive it as an absence of being cared for.

The best way for any individual to learn to delay gratification is to cultivate a hobby or interest that requires work but is inherently gratifying long term, being in a play for example, making dinosaur models... it can be anything!

 

[parents4kids]

It is definitely something you can teach. Of course, us as parents don't want to tell our kids no. You should definitely provide them with the necessities and reward them for good behavior but at the same time they should learn to be grateful. To be honest, delayed gratification is not bad because it will prepare them for the many nos that they will face eventually. Age? I think pre-teens is a good age, but be mindful too that in even in their childhood, if you buy them everything, they will be conditioned to want everything.

 

[alter ego]

I love the idea of allowances and piggy banks!
when my eldest starts highschool in Feb, she will be getting a uniform bought for her (school colour tees/long sleeves, jeans/trackies) plus her basic wardrobe (jeans/plain tops/jackets/ sneakers/sandels)
She will receive a weekly allowance and any extras will come from that. If she wants jeggings *shudder* or a leopard print miniskirt, she can buy it herself.
Her social life will also come out of her allowance (but we pay for sports/lessons)
And we never use the word 'no' with our kids. its something *I* dont like said to me, so I dont say it to them. The little ones have 'gentle touching' instead of 'no hitting' and the older ones are asked 'are your chores finished?" instead of 'no youre not going out until your chores are done"

 

[MomMamaMommy]

I agree that delayed gratification is an important skill to teach children. It's important for them to know that sometimes they will have to wait to get things that they want. Of course, I don't think I'd be denying my children things just on principle to "teach them a lesson"--it's more of a lesson that's learned by necessity (I'll get you a snack when I'm done folding the laundry, you can go to Grandma's on Saturday when it's her day off, etc.). As my children have gotten a little bit older (not that old--the oldest is not quite 5), I do try to take time to explain the concept to them, and since small children tend to want things NOW whether you feel like lecturing them or not, I try to give a time frame to them that they can understand. (I try to avoid "In a minute" in favor of "After I'm done with (insert task here)").

 

[RealDad]

this is what works for me and my two.

When they ask for something and I say no. They now no that will not change... unless they can come up with a convincing sales pitch for why they should have it. And convincing must include something in it for me. They present their arguments for, I present mine against. And so on.

Man, they are getting good.

Once it's a yes, then we work on a plan for how they can get it for themselves.

Mostly these days they come to me and tell me what they are working on getting for themselves. Or how they have decided to entertain themselves.

Not saying that's going to work for anyone else. But it works for us.

 

[MMJR1092]

Delayed gratification is definitely necessary, not with everything, but using it sparingly with things such as chores mentioned above will definitely help a child learn that not everything comes when they want it, some things take work.

 

[alter ego]

this is what works for me and my two.

When they ask for something and I say no. They now no that will not change... unless they can come up with a convincing sales pitch for why they should have it. And convincing must include something in it for me. They present their arguments for, I present mine against. And so on.

Man, they are getting good.

Once it's a yes, then we work on a plan for how they can get it for themselves.

Mostly these days they come to me and tell me what they are working on getting for themselves. Or how they have decided to entertain themselves.

Not saying that's going to work for anyone else. But it works for us.

I love this idea!
My preteen comes up with some great, logical arguments sometimes, should give that a try!

 

[JRP88]

Learn by doing. Give them "training exercises" like: you can have one cookie now OR you can have two cookies in one hour. Anything that encourages self-control.