Inductive discipline: Why it pays to explain the reasons for rules

“Because I said so” might seem like the winning conclusion to any conflict. But research indicates that inductive discipline — helping kids understand the reasons for rules — is linked with better child outcomes. Moreover, as kids get older, they take an increasingly critical view of our policies, and they are more likely to accept our authority as legitimate when we offer them reasonable explanations.

father sitting on grass with young son and daughter, applying inductive discipline

Inductive discipline: How do researchers define it?

Inductive discipline is way of guiding children’s behavior through setting limits and explaining the reasons for these limits. Instead of issuing threats, or just insisting on obedience, the adult explains why the policy is important. The adult shares the reasons behind the rules – helping the child understand how a behavior could cause harm, or create practical problems, or hurt someone’s feelings (e.g., Krevans and Gibbs 1997; Tompkins and Villaruel 2022).

This stands in sharp contrast to both power-assertive discipline (where adults try to control children through threats and punishments) and love withdrawal (where adults withhold signs of affection in response to a child’s perceived misbehavior).

Is inductive discipline the same thing as inductive parenting?

Some people use the term “inductive parenting” interchangeably with “inductive discipline.” I’ve also seen some researchers use the term as a synonym for “authoritative parenting,” which is a parenting style that combines high levels of warmth and responsiveness with enforcing limits through the use of inductive discipline (Bannon 2022).

But how much does talking matter? Aren’t kids just going to misbehave anyway?

Sure, kids will sometimes test our authority. That’s natural.

But, as I point out in another article, most kids are fully capable of cooperating. The trick is to get everybody in the right frame of mind. Adults need to check their expectations, and make sure they are developmentally appropriate and realistic. And kids need to understand what we expect of them, perceive these expectations as reasonable and legitimate.

When kids think we’re overreaching – trying to impose rules that are unethical, unreasonable, or a violation of their rights – they are likely to resist.

And while it’s true that you can take an authoritarian, threat-based approach to crack down on misbehavior or resistance (“Obey without question or you’ll get punished”), research indicates that this is counterproductive. Kids with externalizing behavior problems tend to get worse, as I note here.

Moreover, threats often have the effect of teaching kids to become sneakier – to defy the rules when we aren’t looking. (More about this in my article, “Punitive environments encourage children to tell lies.”)

Finally, using love withdrawal is linked with a variety of negative child outcomes, including resentment, impaired psychological well-being, and a reduced tendency to engage in prosocial acts (Zhang and Wang 2024; Fang et al 2022). In addition, one study hints that love withdrawal may teach young children to use this same tactic against others (Brittain and Vaillancourt 2024).

So what’s a better way to provide guidance?

What’s a better way to foster cooperation and self-regulation, and avoid unnecessary conflicts that just make everybody get angrier?

It’s worth taking stock of what you are expecting, and making sure these expectations are worthwhile and attuned to your child’s current developmental abilities.

To function in the adult world, kids must eventually develop adult levels of executive function — such as advanced emotional regulation, impulse control, cognitive flexibility, and attention skills. But the journey takes time, and if we expect too much too soon, we are basically setting kids up for failure — triggering needless fights, tantrums, and misbehavior.

Then, once you’ve set realistic goals, you can try applying the strategies of positive parenting.

These strategies include anticipating and avoiding situations that are likely to overwhelm your child’s current abilities. They also included providing kids with positive choices to make, rather than focusing primarily on prohibitions. And principles of inductive discipline are central, too: Communicating your expectations clearly. Using reason to help your child understand why a rule is important for maintaining safety, avoiding harm, achieving practical goals, or fostering fairness and social harmony.

You can read more about these strategies in my Parenting Science guide to positive parenting. But here we’re going to take an deeper dive into inductive discipline — why its advantageous, and how to practice it.

The benefits of inductive discipline: Why it’s worth our time and effort

First, kids need to learn about emotions — how to cope with their negative emotions, and how to interpret and anticipate the emotions of others.

When kids understand these things, it’s easier for them to self-regulate and get along with others. And research confirms that we can help kids learn through “emotion coaching” — an important component of inductive discipline. Learn more about emotion coaching from this Parenting Science guide.

Second, it can be easy to overestimate what kids know about our motives and goals.

For example, it might seem obvious to you why you would regulate time spent playing video games. But to a child – especially an indignant child caught up in the heat of the moment – your position might feel arbitrary, capricious – an overly intrusive, personal whim. And this feeling tends to fuel angry resistance…or sneaky defiance.

By contrast, if you take the time to sit down and explain your reasons for enforcing limits (e.g., that your child needs to get physical exercise, keep up with school work, and maintain a healthy sleep schedule), your child might still might still dislike these limits. But he or she will understand your justification, and see that your concerns are legitimate.

You might even trigger some self-reflection, so that your child comes to share your concerns – at least a little.

Once you’ve come to this understanding, you can refer back to it later. You don’t need to launch into a lengthy explanation of the rules each time a conflict arises. But you can issue a reminder. It’s time to wrap up your game. Bedtime is coming and you need to sleep.

Third, studies indicate that kids are less likely to misbehave, and more likely to self-regulate, when their parents employ warmth, reasoning, and reminders.

For instance, research suggests that inductive discipline is especially effective within parent-child relationships that are warm, trusting, and mutually responsive. In these contexts, kids exposed to inductive discipline are more likely to internalize the lessons they learn (Kochanska and Aksan 2006). They are more likely to respond to reasoning in a constructive way — e.g., by

paying attention to the plight of another individual;
experiencing motivational pangs of guilt about the harm that a misdeed has caused;
feeling positive about their ability to change things for the better; and
finding practical ways to make amends.

On the flip side, authoritarian tactics can make kids feel angry, indignant, helpless, and shamed — emotions that are self-centered, and which fail to inspire prosocial behavior.

Such observations have led researchers to speculate that warm, inductive discipline contributes to superior social and moral development (Hoffman 2000; Kochanska and Aksan 2006; Patrick and Gibbs 2012; Patrick and Gibbs 2016). And it may also lower a child’s risk for engaging in acts of aggressive, disruptive, or defiant beahvior. In one study, researchers found that 3-year-olds who received reasoning and reminders from their parents were less likely, two years later, to suffer from teacher-reported externalizing problems (Coe et al 2013).

Finally, by paying attention to a child’s changing developmental needs, we are more likely maintain family harmony and inspire cooperation.

For example, we might not need to explain much when trying to teach toddlers to brush their teeth every day. Children this age are keen to try new things, and to imitate us. Turning it into a game – harnessing their natural curiosity and goodwill – could be all that we need.

But fast forward a year or two, and now these same children may decide that tooth-brushing is a drag. Instead of trying to force the issue – “do it because I said so!” – we are better off explaining why toothbrushing is important. Our teeth get dirty, and if we don’t brush, things can go wrong. We get stinky. Our teeth can decay and start to hurt…

Drilling down: What kinds of explanations are the most effective?

Studies suggest that children are inclined to recognize the legitimacy of policies that are consistent with moral norms, or designed to protect individuals from harm. But kids feel we’ve overreached when they perceive our policies as unethical, frivolous, or intruding on their right to make personal choices (Lagatutta et al 2010; Gingo 2012; Gingo 2017).

And a recent experiment suggests that we can influence children’s perceptions of a policy depending on the way we explain – or fail to explain – ourselves.

Matthew Gingo and Shiva Carver investigated this question by presenting 108 elementary school students (6-, 8-, and 11-year-olds living in the United States) with a series of stories – short vignettes that each featured a parent talking with a child.

The stories all began the same way, with a child who wanted to engage in a recreational activity.

Within each vignette, the child wanted to participate in an everyday activity with a friend. The activity itself would vary from story to story, but it was always what you might call a “culturally acceptable” activity — like playing basketball, watching a movie, riding a bicycle, scrapbooking, or playing catch.

Then came the moment of conflict: The parent in the story would always say no, you can’t do it.

Now we might expect that kids listening to these scenarios would take a critical view of the parent’s call. After all, the protagonist in the story isn’t asking to skip school, or go skateboarding on the freeway. The parent is exercising authority in an area that kids tend to view as a matter of personal choice (how to spend free time).

But that’s the beauty of this experimental design, because the researchers wanted to find out how a parent’s presentation might influence kids’ judgements about legitimate authority. So they tested a variety of different endings to these stories.

How did parent character justify his or her command?

In some scenarios, the parent offered no explanation whatsoever. The dialogue ended there.

In the rest, the parent either cited a justification that violated moral norms (e.g., “You’re a girl and basketball is for boys”), or they provided one of these reasons:

Prudential or safety-oriented (e.g., “Basketball is dangerous and I don’t want you to get hurt”)
Pragmatic or practical (e.g., “You are wearing your nice clothes and they will get dirty”)
Parent’s personal preference (e.g., “Basketball is boring and I want you to do something fun…”)
Intrinsic authority (e.g., “Because I’m your dad and I said so”)

After hearing these stories, the children participating in the study were asked to judge the nature of the parent’s command, e.g., “Was it alright or not alright for the father to tell the child she couldn’t play basketball with her friend?”

Here’s how kids responded.

Kids were more accepting of authority when parents provided justifications about safety or practical concerns. When parents took a more power-assertive approach (e.g., “because I said so…”) children were much less accepting of authority.

Overall, kids didn’t really think any of the prohibitions were entirely “alright.” They often had mixed feelings about them.

But they came closest to rating a prohibition as mostly acceptable when the parent justified it with either a prudential or a pragmatic explanation. When the parent offered a reason that violates moral norms, kids – even the youngest, 6-year-old kids – tended to reject the prohibition. And they weren’t too crazy about the other types of reasons.

Among the 8- and 11-year-olds, prohibitions justified on the basis of parent’s personal preference and intrinsic authority were rejected as either partially or mostly not “alright.” In fact, using these types of justifications was just about as useless as issuing a prohibition without any rationale at all.

Does all this mean that the power-assertive approach is always inferior?

Based on everyday experience – and socio-cultural realities — I think the answer is no.

First, we know there are urgent circumstances where delays in compliance can get kids into serious trouble.

I’m sure you can think of many examples, but let’s take the prototypical one: A young child wanders into a street, oblivious to the danger of oncoming cars. “Get out of the street now!”

The parent needs to provoke immediate, unquestioning compliance. There’s no time for explanation, or even conscious deliberation. The brain’s fight or flight system takes over, and you shout like a drill sergeant.

So there are emergencies where it’s best to issue power-assertive commands, and kids need to respond right away. But that’s not all.

We must also acknowledge social factors.

Many people find themselves in cultural environments that demand unquestioning obedience — or at least the appearance of it.

In such environments, parents need to prepare their kids for surviving in the real world, not the world as we might wish it to be. And this is one reason why strict obedience training is favored in many traditional, stratified, hierarchical societies.

It’s also a concern for parents living in more democratic societies: When they send their kids out the door to attend school, interact with employers, or encounter police officers, they don’t want to take any chances. They want to make sure children have the training to react obediently to certain authority figures – without expecting to be reasoned with.

What’s the best strategy in these circumstances? Is it for parents to use reasoning at home, and also teach their kids to “code-switch” when necessary – so that children stay safe in hierarchical, authoritarian environments? Some parents do this. Others take a different approach. Until research digs deep into the risks, costs, and benefits associated with different environments, we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions.

What are some promising ways to put this research into practice? Here are some tips.

1. Help kids tune into their feelings — and learn strategies for coping with them — by honing your skills as an emotion coach.

As I explain here, this includes trying to notice your child’s negative emotions before they become intense, and then — when your child is calm enough to talk — you listen and validate your child’s feelings. This doesn’t mean you approve of misbehavior. But you acknowledge your child’s emotions, and help him or her communicate about it verbally. Then you can offer practical advice on how to handle these feelings, and how to resolve conflicts without resorting to aggression.

2. Guide behavior with positive parenting tactics, as well as these evidence-based strategies for kids with externalizing problems.

In my positive parenting article, you will find examples of how to avoid getting caught up in power struggles — even with very young children. In my article about externalizing problems, I provide 12 evidence-based tips for dealing with aggression, defiance, and disruptive behavior.

3. Seize everyday opportunities to induce empathy.

It’s hard for kids to understand the true consequences of their behavior if can’t sense what other people are feeling. Check out my evidence-based tips for fostering empathy.

3. If someone in your child’s life favors spanking or other forms of physical punishment, share this evidence with him or her.

The research is pretty clear: Spanking can cause harm, and, in the long run, it appears to be less effective than positive parenting. Read more about it here.

References: Inductive discipline and the legitimacy of authority

Bannon RS. 2022. Inductive Parenting. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA.

Brittain H and Vaillancourt T. 2024. Love withdrawal use by toddlers: Multi-informant associations with aggression and parents’ use of love withdrawal. Aggress Behav50(1):e22108.

Choe DE, Olson SL, Sameroff AJ. 2013. The interplay of externalizing problems and physical and inductive discipline during childhood. Dev Psychol. 49(11):2029-39.

Fang Q, Liu C, Tang Y, Shi Z, Wang Q, and Helwig CC. 2022. Types of parental psychological control and rural and urban Chinese adolescents’ psychological well-being and academic functioning. Child Dev. 93(2):484-501.

Gingo M. 2017. Children’s reasoning about deception and defiance as ways of resisting parents’ and teachers’ directives. Dev Psychol. 53(9):1643-1655.

Gingo M and Carter S. 2024. Subverting parental overreach: Children endorse defiance and deception as legitimate modes of moral resistance and social opposition. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 238: 105800. Published online ahead of text: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105800

Hoffman ML. 2000. Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Kochanska G and Aksan N. 2006. Children’s conscience and self-regulation. J Pers. 74(6):1587-617.

Krevans J and Gibbs JC. 1996. Parents’ use of inductive discipline: Relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development 67(6): 3263–3277.

Lagattuta KH, Nucci L, Bosacki SL. 2010. Bridging theory of mind and the personal domain: children’s reasoning about resistance to parental control. Child Dev. 2010 Mar-Apr;81(2):616-35.

Patrick RB and Gibbs JC. 2016. Maternal Acceptance: Its Contribution to Children’s Favorable Perceptions of Discipline and Moral Identity. J Genet Psychol. 177(3):73-84.

Patrick RB and Gibbs JC. 2012. Inductive discipline, parental expression of disappointed expectations, and moral identity in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 41(8):973-83.

Tompkins V and Villaruel E. 2022. Parent Discipline and Pre-schoolers’ Social Skills. Early Child Dev Care. 192(3):410-424.

Zhang R and Wang Z. 2024. Parent-Child Discrepancies in Perceived Parental Control and Their Associations with Children’s Prosocial Behaviors in Early Adolescence within Chinese Families. J Youth Adolesc. doi: 10.1007/s10964-023-01938-9. Epub ahead of print.

Content last modifed 2/9/24

Image credits

Image of father talking with young son and daughter on the grass by imtmphoto / shutterstock