Apparently, part of the controversy is due to the timeout technique being employed in different ways. Consider a parent who says she uses time out with her 5-year-old daughter. Then, when we watch her using the technique, we discover that whenever her daughter acts in any way that is annoying her, she begins to scream, shoves her into her room, while shouting, “You better shut-up you little brat!” She keeps her alone in her room for an hour.

Now consider another mother who says she uses timeouts with her 5-year-old son. This time, when we watch what she actually does, we see that she uses it along with a much larger set of discipline techniques that she learned from reading the manualized and evidence-based parenting program titled, The Incredible Years. Because she has a number of tools to teach her child to learn how to behave in effective ways, she only uses timeouts on rare occasions, lasting only 5 minutes, and targeting just one behavior during a period of a few weeks until her child has learned a new positive behavior pattern to replace the negative behavior pattern. Then, slowly, she incorporates the technique for teaching another behavior pattern. She never tells her child to stop doing the negative behavior pattern, but instead, she explains, as best that she can, what behavior pattern would be better, and explains why it would be better. When she sends her child to timeout, she does so in a calm, supportive voice, and remains in the same room with him. Prior to carrying out this approach, she has discussed with her child this technique, explaining that learning a new skill takes time, and timeout will help him to learn to act in a manner people will respect. She emphasizes throughout the process that she loves him, and expresses confidence that he will master the new skill soon.

So, here we see two parents believing they use timeouts with their child, but both use dramatically different approaches. I used timeouts with my two sons when they were very young in an even different way. I’ll describe this other approach shortly, but, for now, my main point in this section is that part of the controversy has to do with the fact that when people say they use timeouts, without finding out more details about how they use it, a great deal of misunderstanding can ensue.

Back to the American Psychology Article

Dadds and Tully, the authors of the American Psychologist article I mentioned at the beginning of this post, say that for them the definition of timeout is, “…a parenting strategy in which a child’s access to rewards, usually parental attention, is temporarily removed contingent upon a problem behavior and reinstated following a specified period of nonproblem behavior.”

Removing access to rewards is a type of punishment, and research on punishment indicates it leads to variable results, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Dadds and Tully appear to hope to mitigate any bad results by advocating that rather than using timeout as a stand alone strategy, its use “must be part of a broader behavior program that promotes a warm and rewarding relationship, and explicitly teaches alternative positive child behaviors to replace the problem behavior to improve the child’s self-efficacy in meeting their own needs.”

These authors, reviewing the research evidence, conclude that timeout, when used as they describe, can promote a child’s mental health and that there is an absence of evidence showing it is harmful after five decades of research. Meanwhile, inappropriate parental discipline strategies have been, and continue to be implemented in the name of “timeout,” and these are potentially harmful.

Now, before moving on, let me be clear that I am not disputing the research findings presented by Dadds and Tully. That said, my wife and I nevertheless used with our two sons when they were young a strategy that I viewed as timeout, but it differed in important ways from their approach. I think that difference is worth considering.

How I Used Timeouts

Like the authors in the American Psychologist article, I used timeouts as part of a broader child rearing strategy. However, unlike them, when I did use it, I did not seek to remove my child’s access to rewards, or any other type of punishment.

I have described my broader child rearing strategy in earlier posts (see HERE and HERE) Very briefly, it involved identifying what I wanted each of my two sons to do better and explaining to each of them why it would be better. If one or the other, did not succeed immediately in doing it just right, and began to resist, sometimes he would flare up in anger. When a situation of this kind occurred and he was all tense and excited, I would drop the subject and direct his attention to something else. Then, a little later on, I would bring it up again when he was in a calm mood. As likely as not, he would go over it now without any difficulty.

Another part of my strategy was, whenever possible, to teach my sons to improve their behaviors by focussing on the notion of a good. As William James, the great psychologist and philosopher, described using this approach with children:

Get them habitually to tell the truth, not so much through showing them the wickedness of lying as by arousing their enthusiasm for honor and veracity. Wean them from their native cruelty by imparting to them some of your own positive sympathy with an animal’s inner springs of joy. 

We would celebrate success, rather than punish less than ideal behavior. And we had family meetings to discuss how we could improve how things were going in our home. My wife and I would first ask our sons what plan they suggest to solve a problem. Even if we thought the plan was less than perfect, we would often support giving it a try for a week. Then, if problems of the plan did occur, it would be discussed at the next meeting.

By using our sons’ plans as much as possible, they would be so intent on proving it can work, they would make it work despite flaws. As parents, our goals were to encourage our kids to understand that we were willing to listen to them, and we valued what they had to say. It was also important to us to foster in our boys sufficient self-efficacy in coming up with solutions that they could successfully implement, rather than always relying on authorities.

Finally, I am a big believer in teaching through stories. When an issue came up, I would either rely on a story I had heard, or make one up, designed to help them to consider better approaches to resolve certain problems. And I had both my boys read my three novels that have, embedded in their relatable narrative, a variety of issues regarding kindness and acting in ways that foster respect from others.

Now, because of these approaches, my wife does not recall using timeouts, and I rarely used it. When I would, it was not designed to teach them to improve their behavior. It occurred when someone nearby was having a hard time tolerating something one or both of my sons was doing.

For example, I might come home from work and my wife would say, “Jeff, could you get the kids away from me, I’m preparing dinner and they keep screaming.” So I would take them outside if it was nice out, or up to their room, while explaining, “Mom needs some quiet time.” Then when we would get to the quiet place, I would ask if they wanted some “quiet time” themselves, or did they want me to stay. They always said they wanted me to stay. We would then do something fun.

Note that in contrast to the American Psychologist article I discussed earlier, my use of this type of timeout was not intended to take away some valued reward. Rather, I would seek to do something pleasant with them. At some point, when all was calm, I would ask gently, “When you were making all that noise near Mom, had she asked you to quiet down?” I would then listen to their responses and gently ask what they could do better if a similar situation comes up in the future? When they were very young, sometimes they blamed someone other than themselves for what happened, and I would frown. Sometimes they responded in a manner that took responsibility for their actions, and I would say how much I appreciated what they had said.

As another example, when we were in a restaurant, if one of my boys began to make too much noise, I would take him outside, and explain that people who go to restaurants typically prefer to eat in a pleasantly quiet atmosphere. I would then explain that when he was ready to go back and speak softly we could enjoy a nice family meal together. Typically, in less than five minutes, we would be back at our table.

Now, what I just described, was the general discipline plan. That said, neither I, nor my wife always stuck perfectly to it. We did pretty good, but we both did lose our temper from time to time. When calm returned, I would say at a family meeting that I wished I had handled the situation better. I would also explain that sometimes even adults are not always perfect, and when I raised my voice in anger, if they thought it meant I don’t love them, actually I love them a whole lot.

Let me be crystal clear, I do not have any research evidence that suggests my approach is distinctly better than any of the others that uses timeout along with a broader discipline approach. All I can say for it is that it felt more right to me as I went through the period of my life when I parented on a daily basis, and though I’m obviously biased, as far as I’m concerned, both my boys, now in their thirties, turned out to be fine young men.

Well, there you have it, some thoughts on the controversy surrounding timeouts. I hope you find something helpful in some of the ideas that I shared, and please feel free to share your ideas with me and all of the followers of this blog.

Jeff

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.