Toolbox

Programs that teach parents more positive interaction and emotional communication with their child had larger effects in an analysis of 77 parenting program evaluations for children aged 0 to 7.¹¹ With babies, the same idea looks like responsiveness: in a randomized trial, a home-visit program that taught mothers responsive behaviors made them more responsive, and that helped their infants’ social, emotional, communication and thinking skills grow.¹⁴

What is less clear is how much relationship time adds on top of clear limits and consequences. Two meta-analyses of randomized trials found that programs combining relationship building with behavior management were not better overall than behavior management alone: they did better for children in treatment, worse in prevention programs, and no differently up to 3 years later.¹⁵ So treat connection time as one part of the best-proven approach, not as a fix on its own.

A review of 42 studies of children and teenagers aged 1 to 19 concluded that the way instructions are delivered (“effective instruction delivery”) and a run of easy requests the child is likely to follow before the harder one (“high-probability” request sequences) are among the strategies that may be considered evidence-based for helping children follow adult requests.⁴⁷ Because those studies ran from toddlers to teenagers, not every finding will apply at every age. Consistency may matter too: in an analysis of 77 parenting program evaluations, programs that taught time-out together with the importance of being consistent had larger effects.¹¹

What you do when your child does not comply also counts. A systematic review of 41 studies of children aged 1.5 to 11 found that verbal reprimands and disapproving nonverbal responses consistently increased compliance, while praise had mixed effects.⁴⁵ Firm is not the same as harsh, though: in its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics said that yelling at or shaming children is minimally effective in the short term and not effective in the long term.⁶⁴ So when you correct your child, keep it calm and firm, with no shouting or shaming.

Praise is one of the few parenting techniques linked with stronger program effects. Two meta-analyses of randomized parenting program trials found that only 3 of 26 techniques were linked with stronger effects on disruptive behavior: positive reinforcement, praise in particular, and natural or logical consequences.¹⁶

But praise is one part of the whole approach, not a switch on its own. In experiments that each tested a single parenting behavior, praise did not increase children’s compliance with instructions,⁴⁰ and a systematic review of 41 studies found mixed effects of praise on compliance.⁴⁵ Being specific may matter less than often claimed: in two experiments with children aged 3 to 9, praise that named the behavior worked no better than general praise.⁴¹

What you praise may also matter. In a small role-play experiment with 5- and 6-year-olds, children praised as a person showed more helpless reactions after a later setback, including blaming themselves, than children praised for their effort or approach.³⁸ In a study of 313 children around age 10, person praise made children, especially those with low self-esteem, more likely to feel ashamed after failure.¹²⁸ These were short experiments, so treat this as a sensible lean, not a firm rule.

Planned ignoring is one of the core parts of the best-proven approach. In a meta-analysis of 19 experimental studies that each tested a single parenting behavior, briefly ignoring the child after the child did not comply reliably increased compliance, although the estimates of how large the effect is ranged widely.⁴⁰

Those experiments tested short periods of ignoring right after a child refused an instruction. Using it for whining or sulking applies the same idea rather than resting on those tests directly. It is only for harmless behavior: if something is dangerous or someone could get hurt, step in right away.

Redirection has little direct research of its own; its case rests on expert guidance and on what is typical at these ages. In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against physical punishment and verbal abuse such as shaming, and listed redirecting among the alternatives it recommended, along with positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior, setting limits and setting expectations for the future.⁶⁴

Redirection also fits what is typical for toddlers. In a large study, physical aggression was already present at 12 months, rose during the second year of life and declined from the third birthday onward.⁶⁷ At this age the main job is to keep everyone safe and steer your child toward something better. What is not known is how much of the change over time comes from redirection itself, and how much from simply growing older.

There is little direct research on choices as a discipline tool; the case rests on related studies of motivation. A meta-analysis of 41 studies with children and adults found that being given a choice increased intrinsic motivation, effort, task performance and feelings of competence. The boost to motivation was stronger for children than for adults, stronger when no reward followed the choice, and stronger for small choices that did not change the task itself than for choices between activities.⁴⁶

Choices are also one way to support a child’s sense of autonomy. A review concludes that parents’ autonomy support, which it distinguishes from permissiveness, is consistently linked with positive outcomes in different types of studies and at different ages; in observation studies, it was associated with toddlers taking rules on as their own (what researchers call internalization).⁸⁰ These studies looked at motivation, tasks or associations rather than at everyday cooperation at home, so treat choices as a sensible, low-cost tool rather than a proven one.

There is little direct research on when-then itself. It uses the same principle as positive reinforcement: the wanted behavior is followed by something your child values. Two meta-analyses of randomized parenting program trials found that positive reinforcement was one of only 3 of 26 techniques linked with stronger effects on disruptive behavior.¹⁶

One caution concerns rewards. Researchers disagree about how much rewards affect motivation, but analyses on both sides found that tangible rewards promised in advance can lower interest in a task a child already finds interesting.¹³⁴¹³¹ So save when-then for tasks your child would not choose to do, and use everyday activities as the “then.”

Two meta-analyses of randomized parenting program trials found that natural and logical consequences were among only 3 of 26 techniques linked with stronger effects on disruptive behavior.¹⁶ That analysis grouped natural and logical consequences together, so it does not show how well natural consequences work on their own, and no technique in it, this one included, was linked with stronger effects in the longer term.¹⁶

The everyday rules on this card (safe, small and soon, with sympathy instead of a lecture) are practical guidance rather than tested steps. Natural consequences are never a reason to let a child come to harm: see dangerous behavior.

Natural and logical consequences are among the few parts of parenting programs linked with stronger effects. In 2 meta-analyses of randomized trials, researchers looked at 26 techniques that parenting programs teach. Only 3 were linked with stronger effects on disruptive behavior: positive reinforcement, praise in particular, and natural or logical consequences.¹⁶

That finding is about programs that include the technique, not a test of logical consequences on their own, and no technique in that analysis was linked with stronger long-term effects.¹⁶ We found no studies comparing different logical consequences or testing how long they should last. The advice to keep them small, related and short is practical guidance, not a tested rule.

Time-in is meant to help a child connect with the parent, put feelings into words and learn to calm down. It has been recommended in positive parenting writing since at least the 1990s, yet the authors of the only study we found write that few studies have tested it.³⁷

In that small pilot study, mothers of 3- to 5-year-olds had brief training and then used time-in for 2 weeks. Of the 32 mothers interviewed at the start, 19 provided mostly complete data, and the mothers rated time-in as easy to use and effective.³⁷ That is encouraging but early: the results are the mothers’ own ratings over 2 weeks, and we found no study of whether time-in changes children’s behavior over months.

Time-in is sometimes presented as a replacement for time-out. A review that answered attachment-based criticism of time-out concluded that time-out, used in line with current knowledge, generally enhances children’s well-being.³⁰ So the two can sit side by side: time-in for big feelings, a brief time-out for specific behaviors.

Time-out is one of the most common and well-researched discipline methods in the world.³⁰ Across 77 evaluations of parenting programs for children aged 0 to 7, programs that taught time-out and consistency had larger effects,¹¹ and a meta-analysis of 19 experimental studies found that time-out for not following instructions robustly increased children’s compliance.⁴⁰ In a US study that followed families from early childhood to fifth grade, children whose parents reported using time-out at age 3 did not differ significantly from other children on any emotional, behavioral or parent-child relationship outcome.³⁹ Weighing the criticisms of time-out, one review concluded that careful use within parenting programs is justified and helps many children with conduct problems.⁴³ Another, answering the worry that time-out harms attachment, concluded that time-out used in line with current knowledge generally enhances children’s well-being.³⁰

The practical details rest on much smaller studies. In 2 tiny studies, one with 4 children aged 3 and 4 and one with 3 children (2 of them with intellectual disabilities), time-out reduced problem behavior both when it ended after a fixed time and when it lasted until the child had stopped misbehaving.³²⁴² In the first study, misbehaving during time-out did not predict misbehavior outside it.³² In a study of 6 preschool boys, making time-out shorter whenever a boy went straight away helped 4 of them go to time-out when asked.³³ In a clinic study of 16 noncompliant preschoolers, a back-up for leaving time-out that did not involve spanking worked as well as spanking, and the authors concluded that enforcing a minimum time-out length was critical in that setting.³¹

What is not known: the best length. We found no study showing that longer time-outs work better for young children at home, and a review of 30 years of research found that the way time-out was carried out varied widely and often was not reported.³⁴ One cross-sectional study of mothers and their 8- to 12-year-olds in 6 countries, including China, linked time-out with more anxiety symptoms in children, as it did corporal punishment, shaming and expressing disappointment. A study like that cannot show which came first.³⁵

Direct evidence is thin. In a small classroom study of 4 aggressive preschoolers, teachers took away a smiley face, with a reprimand, after each aggressive act, and children who kept at least one face chose a reward. Aggression dropped substantially, and teachers and parents found the system highly acceptable.⁴⁸ A removal that is related to the behavior is a kind of logical consequence, and natural and logical consequences were among the few techniques linked with stronger results in parenting programs.¹⁶

What is not known: we found no study of parents removing privileges at home with young children, and none comparing short removals with long ones. The advice to keep removals small, related, announced and brief is practical guidance, not a tested rule.

In clinic trials, approaches built on problem-solving have done well for children with serious behavior problems. In a randomized trial of 134 children aged 7 to 14 with oppositional defiant disorder, Collaborative & Proactive Solutions, a collaborative problem-solving approach, worked as well as standard parent management training. About half the children in each treatment no longer met the diagnosis and were much improved, compared with none on the waitlist, and the gains held 6 months later.⁴⁴ An earlier study of the approach in 47 children with oppositional defiant disorder who had trouble regulating their emotions found improvements that matched, and often exceeded, those from parent training.³⁶ In a randomized trial of 97 children aged 7 to 13 with severe antisocial behavior, problem-solving skills training helped, and combining it with parent training helped more.¹²

For everyday disputes the evidence is smaller. Mothers of 5- to 8-year-olds who were trained to mediate their children’s disputes could do it, mothers and children both liked it, and the children reasoned, talked about feelings and understood each other’s motives more often than children in control families. The long-term effects are not known.⁴⁹ Most of this research involved therapists and children with serious behavior problems; how well it works for ordinary family conflicts, and with children under 5, has been studied much less. One caution: in a large analysis of 77 evaluations of parenting programs for children aged 0 to 7, programs that taught parents problem solving were linked with smaller effects.¹¹

The best direct evidence is for bedtime. In a randomized study of 405 mothers and their babies or toddlers, following a consistent nightly bedtime routine for 2 weeks improved children’s sleep compared with keeping the usual routine: they fell asleep faster and woke up less often and for shorter periods. Mothers’ mood improved too.¹²¹ If bedtime is still a battle, behavioral approaches in general have good support: a review of 52 treatment studies found them effective for bedtime problems and night wakings in babies and young children.¹²⁰

For routines more broadly, a review of 50 years of research found family routines and rituals related to parenting competence, children’s adjustment and marital satisfaction. The studies measured routines in different ways, relied on convenience samples and did not separate direct from indirect effects, so they show links rather than proof that routines cause these benefits.¹¹⁵ We found no studies of picture schedules for typically developing children at home. The chart is a practical way to make a routine visible, not a tested treatment.

We found no studies that tested family meetings directly, so this rating rests on related research.

Meetings borrow two ideas that have been studied. One is solving problems together: in a randomized trial with children aged 7 to 14 who had oppositional defiant disorder, a collaborative problem-solving approach worked as well as standard parent management training.⁴⁴ The other is giving children a real voice: a meta-analysis of 36 studies linked parents’ support for children’s autonomy with better psychological health and school achievement.¹⁵⁷ The autonomy studies show links rather than cause and effect, and none of this research looked at family meetings. Whether regular meetings improve behavior or family relationships is not known, so treat them as a practical way to plan together, not a proven treatment.

We found no trials testing whether a parent’s apology or repair after conflict changes young children’s behavior, so this rating rests on related research. A review of research on babies describes infants and caregivers using emotional expressions to regulate their interactions with each other. It suggests that healthy development goes with interactions in which mismatches are frequently repaired, and poorer development with long stretches of failed interaction and negative emotion.⁵⁰ That work is about everyday moments with babies, not about apologizing after yelling.

Repair is also no substitute for avoiding harsh words. In its 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised against verbal abuse such as threatening, insulting or shaming children, and said that yelling at or shaming children is minimally effective in the short term and not effective in the long term.⁶⁴ In a longitudinal study of 976 families, harsh verbal discipline at age 13 was linked with increases in conduct problems and depressive symptoms over the next year, and parents’ warmth did not weaken that link. The link also ran the other way: misbehavior at 13 was linked with increases in parents’ harsh verbal discipline over the next year.⁶⁵ That study involved teenagers, not young children, and it did not test repair.