Danger Explainers Convince Kids Better Than Do Edict Issuers

Moms were better able to sway a child's perception of risk when they explained the reasons an activity was dangerous and its possible consequences rather than just saying no. Christie Nicholson reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


An eight-year-old may view a hammer as a toy. The parent, however, sees it as a soon-to-be broken finger. Children and parents are rarely on the same page when it comes to potential danger. And when the child is denied a seemingly fun activity with an authoritarian, “No, that’s not safe,” there’s a high chance of conflict. But explaining why something is dangerous gets better results, according to a study in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. [Elizabeth E. O’Neal and Jodie M. Plumert, Mother–Child Conversations About Safety: Implications for Socializing Safety Values in Children]

Researchers showed 63 mothers and their eight- and 10-year-olds photos of children engaged in various dicey endeavors, like chopping wood with an axe or riding a skateboard. Each pair then tried to agree on a safety rating for each situation. And moms were much better able to convince the child of the danger when they followed a couple of rules. 
 
The most convincing moms first focused on the reasons that made the situation dangerous, like that ladder is high and wobbly. Next they pointed out possible consequences: if you climb the ladder you could lose your balance and fall.
 
It may sound obvious but the researchers say that offering reasonable explanations allows children to become more skilled at assessing similar situations on their own. And this will help them avoid learning lessons about potential danger the hard way.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe