The Truth About Timeouts

The concept of timeouts was developed by a psychologist named Arthur Staats in the 1960s. It was created as an alternative to spanking and other forms of physical punishment, which were very popular at the time. The idea was that children would be briefly removed from a rewarding or stimulating environment when they showed a particular challenging behavior, like aggression.

Timeout is short for a timeout from positive reinforcement. It is based on the behavioral principle that when you take away positive reinforcement (translation: anything rewarding in the child’s environment such as toys, parents’ and siblings’ attention, or a fun activity), a behavior will occur less frequently. Therefore, this principle can only be applied when the parent provides a positive environment at other times (attention, positive interactions, enriching activities, etc.). This behavioral principle works for adults as well. For example, imagine your phone died when you were waiting at the DMV — it would be boring but tolerable and you would likely be more motivated to charge your phone before the next DMV appointment. Timeout is not meant to cause suffering but just to be very boring.

Research in the 1970s and 1980s found that timeout was very effective at reducing problematic behavior. In the 1990s and 2000s, timeout was included in many parenting intervention programs (translation: programs designed to improve parenting which would thus improve parent-child relationship and the child’s behavior). As study after study consistently supported the use of timeout, it began to be recommended by nearly all pediatricians and mental health professionals.

It is unclear exactly when the opposition to timeout began but it may have originated in 2014, when authors Dan Siegel and Tina Payne Bryson wrote an article for Time magazine called “Timeouts Are Hurting Your Child.” In this article, Siegel, a psychiatrist, and Bryson, a licensed clinical social worker, argued that children experience timeouts as rejection. They asserted that misbehavior in children is often a “cry for help calming down” and a “bid for connection.” They also argued that timeouts make children angrier and more disregulated, which makes it harder for them to reflect on their behavior. Instead, they suggest that parents use “time-in” which involves “sitting with the child and talking or comforting [them].”

Siegel and Bryson used a brain imaging study to back up these claims. They wrote, “In a brain scan, relational pain — that caused by isolation during punishment — can look the same as physical abuse.” However, the study they are referring to only included adults, and the adults in this study did not experience isolation during punishment but rather they were left out of a virtual ball-throwing game. The researchers found that social exclusion during this video game was associated with activation of the anterior cingulate cortex (a brain region that has been found in previous research to be linked to physical pain, but also many, many other functions such as problem-solving and processing of all emotions). While these findings are interesting, it is hard to understand how this study might be applied to timeout and they definitely cannot be used to conclude that isolation during punishment causes physical pain for children.

Siegel and Bryson later clarified that they were only referring to timeouts which were conducted in harsh or punitive ways. They wrote in a follow-up piece that they actually support the use of timeout when it is used “infrequently, calmly, and with lots of support and connection and positive support.” They explained that “the ‘appropriate’ use of timeouts calls for brief, infrequent, previously explained breaks from an interaction used as part of a thought-out parenting strategy that is followed by positive feedback and connection with a parent.” They added that “This seems not only reasonable, but it is an overall approach supported by the research as helpful for many children.”

Yet, despite their clarification, the movement against timeout continued and a research study in 2014 found that 30% of websites on timeout inaccurately claimed the practice was either potentially harmful or ineffective. The researchers also found inconsistent or minimal information on research-backed timeout parameters. At the same time, timeout continues to be recommended by most psychologists and pediatricians, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Allison Green
Boston Tutoring Services