New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe