However, when it comes to timeout, child behavior specialists have failed to reach consensus. In a recent Washington Post article, Claire Gillespie quotes several experts who feel that timeout is ineffective at best and damaging and dangerous at its worst. (Timeouts are a dated and ineffective parenting strategy. So what’s a good alternative? Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2019.)
Comstock/Thinkstock
How do you feel about timeouts? Do you think they are effective? Do you think that brief periods of isolation in a home setting will increase a child’s anxiety? Will the threat of isolation create long-lasting psychological harm? Or do you believe that properly done timeout can be a safe consequence when a child misbehaves?
The disagreement seems to be another one of those issues of apples and oranges. Do I believe that solitary confinement in a prison or chained to a metal cot in the basement of mentally deranged and obsessive parent will leave psychological scars? Of course I do. But, do I believe that a few minutes alone in a child’s own room in a home in which her parents frequently express their affection will cause any harm? Not for a moment. It’s not so much where the child is. It’s where she isn’t. Of course, she doesn’t want to be isolated from the family and that sends a powerful but not harmful message. A big hug and a kiss at the end of the timeout wipes the slate clear.
Some critics believe that timeout should be condemned because it is a punishment. Here again, it’s a case of semantics. Punishments in my mind are inhumane, “a pound of flesh” or “an eye for an eye” response. A well-done timeout is a harmless consequence and one that particularly makes sense when the misbehavior has been or is creating an unpleasant atmosphere in the family.
Other critics will claim that timeouts aren’t an effective deterrent. Correct! They aren’t meant to be a deterrent. A detailed discussion, more likely a lecture, about the misbehavior before and even immediately after a timeout is a waste of time. If timeouts are a deterrent it is because of their safety. Parents will be more likely to use them as a consequence, and most importantly to follow up on their threats. A parent whose words can be believed is his or her own best deterrent.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Finally, many parents who have tried timeouts will claim that they don’t work. This is true if they were talking about deterrent value. Maybe the timeouts have been too long or too short. About 30-60 seconds after the child stops crying may be enough. However, if the parents mean that the child wouldn’t stay in timeout in his room, then they have not taken the difficult final step. If the parent doesn’t have the stamina to keep walking the child back into his room, then it is time to put a latch on the door. Whoops. ... I may have lost some of you who up to this point have been nodding agreement along with my rationale. I know, I know it smacks of prison. It may be used only once or twice, but it will remain as a tangible reminder that sometimes enough is enough. Frequent trips into the room to help the child self-calm make it clear he hasn’t been abandoned.
It’s hard to provide a fully nuanced argument for including timeout in the consequence arsenal in 500 words. I’m eager to hear how you feel on the subject. I can take the heat.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.