WeiMeiJiao Warm, firm discipline from birth to age 12

By age

Starting school (5-7 years)

Starting school brings long days, new rules and new people, and new questions at home: what to do about a lie, a lost privilege or a fight over what’s fair.

Start here

  1. Protect sleep and plan some quiet time after school: tired, stressed children have less self-control.72
  2. Put the school-day routine on a picture list or checklist, so the list does the reminding instead of you. See routines and visual schedules.
  3. Let small, safe natural consequences happen, like a chilly recess after leaving the jacket at home.16
  4. When the same problem keeps coming back, try solving problems together at a calm time instead of in the middle of it.
  5. If you suspect a lie, stay calm and make the truth easy to tell: say you’ll be glad to hear what really happened.99
In the morning, a child with a backpack heads for the front door while a parent kneels beside them holding a book.

What’s normal at this age

Starting school asks a lot of a 5- to 7-year-old: sitting still, waiting for a turn, following a teacher’s rules and spending long days away from home. If your child holds it together at school and falls apart with you, think tiredness first. A review concludes that stress and lack of sleep both weaken self-control and working memory.72 In a 2016 consensus statement, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends 10 to 13 hours of sleep a day at age 5 and 9 to 12 hours from age 6.123

Lying shows up, and it is common. In a study where children aged 3 to 8 were told not to peek at a toy, most peeked and then lied about it. Lying goes hand in hand with new thinking skills: the children’s first lies were linked with understanding what another person believes and with self-control.97 Lies also get more skilled with age. In an experiment with 4- to 8-year-olds, older children were more likely to lie and to keep the lie going under questioning.99 A lie is a behavior to deal with, not a verdict on your child’s character.

Big feelings still take over sometimes, and handling them is a skill that can be taught. In a program for siblings aged 4 to 8, children who learned emotional and social skills managed their feelings better, got along better and needed less help from parents to calm down, compared with families on a waiting list.82

What works, and why

The foundations are the same as in earlier years: warm attention for what you want to see more of, clear expectations, and calm, brief consequences used consistently. Together they are the core of the best-proven approach. Regular one-on-one connection time belongs here too: parenting programs for children up to age 7 that built positive parent-child interaction and emotional communication had larger effects.11

Make school days predictable

Keep mornings and evenings in the same order every day, and let a picture list or checklist do the reminding instead of you. Pack the school bag and lay out clothes the night before. After school, plan a soft landing: a snack and some quiet time before questions, homework or activities. A review of 32 publications linked family routines with children’s adjustment, while noting weaknesses in the studies, such as convenience samples.115 See routines and visual schedules, and sleep and screens.

Notice what goes right

Tell your child what you liked: “You got dressed before breakfast without a reminder.” In meta-analyses of parenting program trials, praise was among only 3 of 26 techniques linked with stronger effects on disruptive behavior.16 It does not have to be elaborate. In experiments with 3- to 9-year-olds, praise that named the exact behavior worked no better than a simple “well done.”41 See specific praise and attention.

Let consequences teach

A natural consequence happens on its own: forget your snack and you are hungry until lunch. When it is safe, let it happen and skip the “I told you so.” A logical consequence is one you set that fits the misbehavior: crayon on the wall means helping to scrub it off, and using the tablet past the timer means no tablet for the rest of the day. Natural and logical consequences were also among those 3 techniques linked with stronger effects.16

Taking away a privilege can be a logical consequence too, if it is related and short: screens are done for today, not for a month, and tomorrow is a fresh start. Choose consequences you will actually carry out every time. Programs for children up to age 7 that taught time-out and the importance of consistency had larger effects.11 For hitting, a brief time-out still fits this age. See natural consequences, logical consequences and privilege removal.

Solve problems together

When the same problem keeps coming back, such as the morning rush or fights over one toy, stop inventing new punishments. At a calm moment, sit down together: each person says what they want, you list ideas without judging them, pick one to try and check back in a few days. In a study of families with 5- to 8-year-olds, mothers trained to mediate their children’s disputes could do it, and both mothers and children liked it. The children reasoned, talked about feelings and understood each other’s motives more often than children in control families, and mediation especially helped younger siblings solve conflicts. The study looked only at short-term effects.49 See solving problems together.

When it’s about fairness

When you hear “That’s not fair!”, you don’t have to make everything equal. Fair can mean each child gets what they need. Help each child say what they want, then look for a solution both can accept: that is the mediation described above. Step in early when sibling fights get rough. In a national sample, children aged 0 to 9 who had experienced aggression from a sibling in the past year had more mental health distress.103 See sibling fighting.

Make the truth easy to tell

When you suspect a lie, don’t set a trap by asking a question you already know the answer to. Say what you know, invite the truth and thank your child for it. In an experiment with 372 children aged 4 to 8, children told the truth more often when they heard that the adult would be happy if they told the truth. An appeal to their own standards (“you’ll be happy with yourself”) worked better when no punishment was expected.99 Then keep the consequence about putting things right: cleaning up, apologizing, giving back what was taken. See lying.

What backfires

Harsh punishment. It can look like the way to stop lying, but it can teach children to hide things better. In a natural experiment with 3- and 4-year-olds in West Africa, children at a school that used harsh punishment were more likely than children at a school that did not to lie about peeking at a toy they had been told to leave alone, and they were better at keeping the lie going.98 It was one study of younger children, but it fits the experiment above, where expecting punishment weakened the appeal to children’s own standards of honesty.99

Yelling, threats and shaming. In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics advises against them and says harsh methods like these, along with physical punishment, are minimally effective in the short term and not effective in the long term.64 If you lose your temper, use repair after conflict.

Labels instead of feedback. “You’re so smart” and “You’re a bad kid” both judge the child rather than what they did. In two role-play experiments with 5- and 6-year-olds, children who got praise or criticism aimed at themselves showed more helpless reactions after a setback, including blaming themselves, than children who got feedback on how they went about the task.38

Spanking. A meta-analysis found physical punishment was associated with more immediate compliance, but also with more aggression, weaker moral internalization (taking rules to heart) and poorer mental health.54 The AAP’s 2018 policy statement also recommends against it.64 A minority of researchers argue that biases and confounds in that meta-analysis limit what it can show about cause, and that its evidence does not justify telling all parents never to spank.52 The Physical discipline page sets out both sides.

Things you can say

After school You worked hard all day. Snack first, talk later.
A natural consequence You were cold at recess without your jacket. What would help you remember tomorrow?
A logical consequence The tablet was still on after the timer, so it’s done for today. You can try again tomorrow.
When you suspect a lie I already know the cup got broken. I’m not going to shout. I’d be really glad if you told me what happened.
After your child tells the truth Thank you for telling me. That took courage. Now let’s fix it together.
That’s not fair! You both want the window seat. What idea could work for both of you?
Praising effort You kept trying different ways until it worked.
After you lost your temper I yelled this morning, and I’m sorry. Let’s start again.

Sources

The small numbers in the text point to these sources. Each one has a full entry on the Research page.

  1. Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A Meta-analytic Review of Components Associated with Parent Training Program Effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 567-589. See it on the Research page doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 Back to the text
  2. Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., et al. (2019). Meta-Analyses: Key Parenting Program Components for Disruptive Child Behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.07.900 Back to the text
  3. Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835-847. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835 Back to the text
  4. Leijten, P., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Dishion, T. J., & Matthys, W. (2016). What good is labeling what’s good? A field experimental investigation of parental labeled praise and child compliance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 87, 134-141. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.09.008 Back to the text
  5. Siddiqui, A., & Ross, H. (2004). Mediation as a Method of Parent Intervention in Children’s Disputes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 147-159. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.147 Back to the text
  6. Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 580-589. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.580 Back to the text
  7. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539 Back to the text
  8. Sege, R. D., Siegel, B. S., Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2018). Effective Discipline to Raise Healthy Children. Pediatrics, 142(6), e20183112. See it on the Research page doi:10.1542/peds.2018-3112 Back to the text
  9. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168. See it on the Research page doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Back to the text
  10. Kennedy, D. E., & Kramer, L. (2008). Improving Emotion Regulation and Sibling Relationship Quality: The More Fun With Sisters and Brothers Program. Family Relations, 57(5), 567-578. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00523.x Back to the text
  11. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2008). Social and Cognitive Correlates of Children’s Lying Behavior. Child Development, 79(4), 866-881. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01164.x Back to the text
  12. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2011). A Punitive Environment Fosters Children’s Dishonesty: A Natural Experiment. Child Development, 82(6), 1751-1758. See it on the Research page doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01663.x Back to the text
  13. Talwar, V., Arruda, C., & Yachison, S. (2015). The effects of punishment and appeals for honesty on children’s truth-telling behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 209-217. See it on the Research page doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.09.011 Back to the text
  14. Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Shattuck, A. (2013). Association of Sibling Aggression With Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Pediatrics, 132(1), 79-84. See it on the Research page doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3801 Back to the text
  15. Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (2002). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration?. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 381-390. See it on the Research page doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.4.381 Back to the text
  16. Paruthi, S., et al. (2016). Recommended Amount of Sleep for Pediatric Populations: A Consensus Statement of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 12(6), 785-786. See it on the Research page doi:10.5664/jcsm.5866 Back to the text