This is an interesting take, and I agree that emotional resilience is a crucial skill for kids to develop. Teaching children how to regulate their emotions rather than being overwhelmed by them is essential. However, from an attachment perspective, we have to be careful not to confuse validating emotions with endorsing behaviour. The two aren’t the same.
Circle of Security which I teach talks about when children express big emotions, it’s a signal that they need help organising their feelings. If we ignore their reactions too often, they may not learn how to regulate them but instead suppress or escalate them to get a response. Rather than dismissing emotions, the goal should be to help children make sense of what they feel, while also guiding them towards more constructive ways to express it.
For example, if a child hits another child in frustration, we can acknowledge their anger (I see you’re really upset) while setting a boundary (I won’t let you hit) and guiding them toward a better response (Let's take a deep breath and talk about what happened). That way, we’re not reinforcing poor communication, but we are also not shutting down their emotions. Both matter for long-term resilience.
It’s a balance—kids need to feel safe in expressing emotions, but they also need to learn that emotions don’t justify all actions. The key is helping them feel understood first, then teaching them skills to navigate life more effectively. Thoughts?
It’s a balance—kids need to feel safe in expressing emotions, but they also need to learn that emotions don’t justify all actions.
Hard to argue with this statement. We’re probably about 90% in agreement.
Accidentally endorsing behaviour is where parents often go wrong from a purely functional perspective. I’m not certain what I disagree with you on, either. I think it's that children need to learn that certain ways of expressing themselves don’t work. I.e. If a child has learned that a big emotion gets lots of attention (which it does) it needs to be ignored, talked about later, and replaced with a better strategy. This doesn’t apply to every scenario like when something worthy of a dramatic reaction happens, just those we wouldn’t think are developmentally appropriate for their age.
Yeah, I think we’re pretty close on this. I totally agree that we don’t want to reinforce unhelpful emotional expressions. Where COS adds something useful is in acknowledging the feeling without feeding the behaviour.
Kids don’t manipulate in the way adults think, but they do learn patterns based on what gets a response. Instead of ignoring, COS would suggest naming what’s happening and guiding them towards a better way to express it.
So rather than ignoring, it’s more like "I see you're upset. I’m here. Let’s figure this out when you're ready." That way, we’re not dismissing emotions, but we’re also not reinforcing meltdowns as a way to communicate.
I think we’re on the same page—just looking at slightly different angles.
Yeah adults attach too many agendas to children’s actions when really they just learned something worked before so they’ll try it again. No need to overthink it.
Ok grand, that’s pretty similar to what I do. To clarify, if I have been teaching a skill and its at the reinforcement stage, I initially ignore (maybe throw ‘the look’) to see if they independently change their approach, a reminder if necessary and then reinforce positively. I’ll look into this COS method for sure to see what I can sponge or what works. At the end of the day, I’m just interested in what works and sets children up as well as possible long-term.
Robb I love both your piece and this response! Would add (especially for older kids) teaching/modeling cognitive reappraisal strategies to increase coping. But I don’t disagree with a thing here!
I appreciate that Katie! Always good to think an idea through.
Thanks for the suggestion, I've never known the name of that technique. I saw Jocko Willink (ex-navy seal) who does a slightly over the top version of framing bad things as opportunities. Always liked the idea, but glad I can look up a proper playbook for it.
Question about this particular example (the one about hitting): What about the kid who got hit? Seems like the focus is on making the hitter feel safe, “I won’t let you hit” isn’t so helpful after the fact, and kids are pretty focused on fairness and justice. Are you a parent in this hypothetical situation (so they are both your kids) or are you a professional working with two unrelated kids? Curious about the dynamic here and whether there is room for a firmer boundary when it comes to physical aggression.
Question ti me? I work in a school so unrelated to either in this hypothetical but common scenario 😂
That's where I struggle with the emotional safety side. Risking the safety of other children is a crossed line and in my opinion the hitter needs to get a sense of that regardless of their emotional state, for their own sake and the safety of others.
Agree, and I worry the approach described (intentionally or not) sends the message to the kid who got hit that adults aren’t really going to protect them in that situation. So I can’t imagine that’s great for their emotional safety.
I hear you, and I agree that the child who got hit absolutely needs to feel protected and safe. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that their emotional safety isn’t just as important.
My point was more about addressing both sides in a way that teaches long-term emotional regulation. Stopping the hitting firmly is key, but if we only punish the behaviour without helping the child who hit learn a better way to express frustration, we risk it happening again.
For the child who got hit, they also need comfort and reassurance that hitting isn’t okay and that adults are there to keep them safe. So, it’s not about protecting one child over the other—it’s about making sure both get what they need in the moment.
So what would your approach to the child who hit someone be? For me, there would be a pre-determined response in the moment and a consequence. Then follow-up with a teachable skill when everyone is back in an appropriate mind-set. The positive reinforcement of the new skill would be ongoing and consistent. In a nutshell....
One of my favourite expressions from my childhood :)
This is an interesting take, and I agree that emotional resilience is a crucial skill for kids to develop. Teaching children how to regulate their emotions rather than being overwhelmed by them is essential. However, from an attachment perspective, we have to be careful not to confuse validating emotions with endorsing behaviour. The two aren’t the same.
Circle of Security which I teach talks about when children express big emotions, it’s a signal that they need help organising their feelings. If we ignore their reactions too often, they may not learn how to regulate them but instead suppress or escalate them to get a response. Rather than dismissing emotions, the goal should be to help children make sense of what they feel, while also guiding them towards more constructive ways to express it.
For example, if a child hits another child in frustration, we can acknowledge their anger (I see you’re really upset) while setting a boundary (I won’t let you hit) and guiding them toward a better response (Let's take a deep breath and talk about what happened). That way, we’re not reinforcing poor communication, but we are also not shutting down their emotions. Both matter for long-term resilience.
It’s a balance—kids need to feel safe in expressing emotions, but they also need to learn that emotions don’t justify all actions. The key is helping them feel understood first, then teaching them skills to navigate life more effectively. Thoughts?
It’s a balance—kids need to feel safe in expressing emotions, but they also need to learn that emotions don’t justify all actions.
Hard to argue with this statement. We’re probably about 90% in agreement.
Accidentally endorsing behaviour is where parents often go wrong from a purely functional perspective. I’m not certain what I disagree with you on, either. I think it's that children need to learn that certain ways of expressing themselves don’t work. I.e. If a child has learned that a big emotion gets lots of attention (which it does) it needs to be ignored, talked about later, and replaced with a better strategy. This doesn’t apply to every scenario like when something worthy of a dramatic reaction happens, just those we wouldn’t think are developmentally appropriate for their age.
Yeah, I think we’re pretty close on this. I totally agree that we don’t want to reinforce unhelpful emotional expressions. Where COS adds something useful is in acknowledging the feeling without feeding the behaviour.
Kids don’t manipulate in the way adults think, but they do learn patterns based on what gets a response. Instead of ignoring, COS would suggest naming what’s happening and guiding them towards a better way to express it.
So rather than ignoring, it’s more like "I see you're upset. I’m here. Let’s figure this out when you're ready." That way, we’re not dismissing emotions, but we’re also not reinforcing meltdowns as a way to communicate.
I think we’re on the same page—just looking at slightly different angles.
Yeah adults attach too many agendas to children’s actions when really they just learned something worked before so they’ll try it again. No need to overthink it.
Ok grand, that’s pretty similar to what I do. To clarify, if I have been teaching a skill and its at the reinforcement stage, I initially ignore (maybe throw ‘the look’) to see if they independently change their approach, a reminder if necessary and then reinforce positively. I’ll look into this COS method for sure to see what I can sponge or what works. At the end of the day, I’m just interested in what works and sets children up as well as possible long-term.
Robb I love both your piece and this response! Would add (especially for older kids) teaching/modeling cognitive reappraisal strategies to increase coping. But I don’t disagree with a thing here!
I appreciate that Katie! Always good to think an idea through.
Thanks for the suggestion, I've never known the name of that technique. I saw Jocko Willink (ex-navy seal) who does a slightly over the top version of framing bad things as opportunities. Always liked the idea, but glad I can look up a proper playbook for it.
I feel like I keep telling people to read Erik Nook’s work on language and coping but here I am doing it again. Great starting point!
I’ll look into that too! Thanks
Question about this particular example (the one about hitting): What about the kid who got hit? Seems like the focus is on making the hitter feel safe, “I won’t let you hit” isn’t so helpful after the fact, and kids are pretty focused on fairness and justice. Are you a parent in this hypothetical situation (so they are both your kids) or are you a professional working with two unrelated kids? Curious about the dynamic here and whether there is room for a firmer boundary when it comes to physical aggression.
Question ti me? I work in a school so unrelated to either in this hypothetical but common scenario 😂
That's where I struggle with the emotional safety side. Risking the safety of other children is a crossed line and in my opinion the hitter needs to get a sense of that regardless of their emotional state, for their own sake and the safety of others.
Agree, and I worry the approach described (intentionally or not) sends the message to the kid who got hit that adults aren’t really going to protect them in that situation. So I can’t imagine that’s great for their emotional safety.
I hear you, and I agree that the child who got hit absolutely needs to feel protected and safe. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that their emotional safety isn’t just as important.
My point was more about addressing both sides in a way that teaches long-term emotional regulation. Stopping the hitting firmly is key, but if we only punish the behaviour without helping the child who hit learn a better way to express frustration, we risk it happening again.
For the child who got hit, they also need comfort and reassurance that hitting isn’t okay and that adults are there to keep them safe. So, it’s not about protecting one child over the other—it’s about making sure both get what they need in the moment.
So what would your approach to the child who hit someone be? For me, there would be a pre-determined response in the moment and a consequence. Then follow-up with a teachable skill when everyone is back in an appropriate mind-set. The positive reinforcement of the new skill would be ongoing and consistent. In a nutshell....