- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Attachment Parenting
What's wrong with time-outs?
I just saw something online about how AP parents don't do timeouts. Why not? I haven't started doing any reading about gentle discipline yet since our DD is so little so I don't have much of an understanding about AP approaches to discipline other than no spanking.
I honestly do believe in AP but sometimes I wonder if AP can produce little brats.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: What's wrong with time-outs?
I personally am cool with time outs, just not as a punishment. EVERYONE needs a time-out, IMO. I think it's just the way that its looked at that can make it a bad thing. For example, I hope not to scream at Moses to get in the corner for a "time out". I'd prefer to say "Look, you seem to be having a hard time listening right now, and I think it would be best if you'd take some time to calm down and then rejoin the group when you feel like you're calm enough to behave."
It worked wonderfully with the little girl I used to nanny. Time outs weren't punishment, they were just a time to calm down and regroup if she was having a hard time getting along with other kids or listening, etc. Eventually she would actually be able to tell if she was starting to lose control (at 3 years old!) and would let me know that she needed some time to herself. She'd send herself to her own room or to a quiet place if we were out, and stay there for a few minutes until she felt better. It was really cool to see. AP is all about teaching internal control, and she definitely learned that.
j+k+m+e | running with needles
This is how we use them. DS was a pretty easy baby, but once the terrible 3's (not 2's in our house- he was pretty easy in his 2's!) hit, all bets were off. We found that by giving him a time out to calm down and get himself together was one of the most effective strategies for helping him learn to control himself. He's still a work in progress, but has come a long way. He's still a very impulsive child, and will probably wind up with an ADHD dx down the line, we are adament against medicating him at such a young age, if ever. I'd rather exhaust every other possibility before heading down that route. Before he was 3 though, I don't think I ever used time out- we just redirected. It took him long enough to grasp the concept of time out when we started it at 3, I can't imagine it would have meant anything to him at the age of 2.
I really think that you should discipline by child temperment. I only have this baby and of course there is really no reason to scold at this point, but I have 2 younger siblings that were totally different from each other. My younger sister had a major sense of guilt and pretty much didn't need anything other than to be scolded. My brother, on the other hand, was from the devil. He was HORRIBLE!!!! My mom didn't want to spank, but it was the only thing that worked with him. Timeout was useless. When he could talk I remember him sitting in the corner saying to my mom, you can put me in this chair but I am just going to do it again when I get up. Wth!!! I will say that he is super freaking smart and now is a good human, but I would just look at him and think, I'm never having children. I am not a hardcore AP'er but I really think that with most children timeout is a good thing and can be beneficial. I haven't read anything about it being harmful. I need timeouts at times and I am 30 years old lol.
IMO, t.o.s can be great if used sparingly and carefully. If DDs need a little time to chill, a time out can be great. Or if it has been one of *those* days and I need a few minute of peace! Kids usually can benefit from natural consequences and the modeling of appropriate behavior more than a t.o. My kids are far from spoiled. If anything, I tend to be a little too strict.
I'm a big reader, and have read a lot of Alfie Kohn on the topic...
Here's something he published in the NYTimes.
============
NEW YORK TIMES
September 15, 2009
Parental Love with Strings Attached
By Alfie Kohn
[This is a slightly expanded version of the published article, which was titled "When a Parent's 'I Love You' Means 'Do as I Say.'" For a more detailed treatment of the topic discussed here, please see the book or DVD entitled Unconditional Parenting.]
More than 50 years ago, Carl Rogers suggested that successful psychotherapy relies on three key ingredients. Therapists must be genuine rather than hiding behind a mask of professionalism. They must understand their clients? feelings accurately. And they must put aside judgment in order to express ?unconditional positive regard? for those they seek to help.
That last one is a doozy ? not only because it?s so difficult but because of what the need for it says about how we were raised. Rogers believed that therapists need to accept their clients without any strings attached so that the clients can begin to accept themselves. And the reason so many have disowned or repressed parts of who they are is because their parents put ?conditions of worth? on their care: I love you, but only when you?re well-behaved (or successful in school, or impressive to other adults, or quiet, or thin, or deferential, or cute . . .)
The implication is that loving our children isn?t enough. We have to love them unconditionally ? for who they are, not for what they do.
As a father, I know this is a tall order, but it becomes even more challenging now that so much of the advice we are given amounts to exactly the opposite. In effect, we?re given tips in conditional parenting, which comes in two flavors: turn up the affection when they?re good, withhold affection when they?re not.
Thus, TV?s ?Dr. Phil? McGraw tells us in his book Family First that what children need or enjoy should be offered contingently, turned into rewards to be doled out or withheld so they ?behave according to your wishes.? And ?one of the most powerful currencies for a child,? he adds, ?is the parents? acceptance and approval.?
Likewise, Jo Frost of ?Supernanny,? in her book of the same name, says, ?The best rewards are attention, praise, and love,? and these should be held back ?when the child behaves badly . . . until she says she is sorry,? at which point the love is turned back on.
Note that conditional parenting isn?t limited to old-school authoritarians. Some people who wouldn?t dream of spanking choose instead to discipline their young children by forcibly isolating them, a tactic we prefer to call ?time out.? Conversely, ?positive reinforcement? teaches children that they?re loved ? and lovable ? only when they do whatever we decide is a ?good job.?
This raises the intriguing possibility that the problem with praise isn?t that it is done the wrong way -- or handed out too easily, as social conservatives insist. Rather, it might be just another method of control, analogous to punishment. The primary message of all types of conditional parenting is that children must earn a parent?s love. A steady diet of that, Rogers warned, and children might eventually need a therapist to provide the unconditional acceptance they didn?t get when it counted.
But was Rogers right? Before we toss out mainstream discipline, it would be nice to have some evidence. And now we do.
In 2004, two Israeli researchers, Avi Assor and Guy Roth, joined Edward Deci, a leading American expert on the psychology of motivation, in asking more than 100 college students whether the love they had received from their parents had seemed to depend on whether they had succeeded in school, practiced hard for sports, been considerate toward others, or suppressed emotions like anger and fear.
It turned out that children who received conditional approval were indeed somewhat more likely to act as the parent wanted. But compliance came at a steep price. First, these children tended to resent and dislike their parents. Second, they were apt to say that the way they acted was often due more to a ?strong internal pressure? than to ?a real sense of choice.? Moreover, their happiness after succeeding at something was usually short-lived and they often felt guilty or ashamed.
In a companion study, Assor and his colleagues interviewed mothers of grown children. With this generation, too, conditional parenting proved damaging. Those mothers who, as children, sensed that they were loved only when they lived up to their parents? expectations now felt less worthy as adults. Yet despite the negative effects, these mothers were more likely to use conditional affection with their own children.
This July, the same researchers, now joined by two of Deci?s colleagues at the University of Rochester, published two replications and extensions of the 2004 study. This time their subjects were ninth graders, and this time giving more attention and affection when children did what parents wanted was carefully distinguished from giving less when they did not.
The studies found that both positive and negative conditional parenting were harmful, but in slightly different ways. The positive kind sometimes succeeded in getting children to work harder on academic tasks, but at the cost of unhealthy feelings of ?internal compulsion.? Negative conditional parenting, meanwhile, didn?t even work in the short run; it just increased the teenagers? negative feelings about their parents.
What these ? and other ? studies tell us, if we?re able to hear the news, is that praising children for doing something right isn?t a meaningful alternative to pulling back or punishing when they do something wrong. Both are examples of conditional parenting, and both are counterproductive.
The child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, who readily acknowledged that the version of negative conditional parenting known as time-out can cause ?deep feelings of anxiety,? nevertheless endorsed them for that very reason. ?When our words are not enough,? he said, ?the threat of the withdrawal of our love and affection is the only sound method to impress on him that he had better conform to our request.?
But the data suggest that love withdrawal isn?t particularly effective at getting compliance, much less at promoting moral development. Even if we did succeed in making children obey us, though ? say, by using positive reinforcement ? is obedience worth the possible long-term psychological harm? Should parental love be used as a tool for controlling children?
Deeper issues also underlie a different sort of criticism. Albert Bandura, the father of the branch of psychology known as social learning theory, declared that unconditional love ?would make children directionless and quite unlovable? ? an assertion entirely unsupported by empirical studies. The idea that children accepted for who they are would lack direction or appeal is most informative for what it tells us about the dark view of human nature held by those who issue such warnings.
In practice, according to an impressive collection of data by Deci and others, unconditional acceptance by parents as well as teachers should be accompanied by ?autonomy support?: explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child?s point of view.
The last of these features is important with respect to unconditional parenting itself. Most of us would protest that of course we love our children without any strings attached. But what counts is how things look from the perspective of the children ? whether they feel just as loved when they mess up or fall short.
Carl Rogers didn?t say so, but I?ll bet he would have been glad to see less demand for skillful therapists if that meant more people were growing into adulthood having already felt unconditionally accepted.
Copyright ? 2009 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced, and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally appeared, date of publication, and author's name). Permission must be obtained in order to reprint this article in a published work or in order to offer it for sale in any form. Please write to the address indicated on the Contact Us page.
www.alfiekohn.org -- ? Alfie Kohn
I am the 99%.
This is how we use timeouts as well. It's not punishment. It's a chance for Jack to take a couple minutes to chill out and regroup.
I can say we have done time out for punishment maybe five times ever. It's almost always been about emotions and not behavior. He understands he's not in trouble when we take these breaks.
Thanks everyone. My philosophy of discipline of a young child is basically to avoid setting them up for failure by exposing to situations where they are not able to control themselves. I don't have a toddler but from years of watching my friends' toddlers my opinion is that young child are not developed enough to sit still and be quiet for long periods of time. I think that a lot of parents set their kids up to misbehave to taking them places where they are required to do what they are not able to do.
I guess I don't necessarily buy the idea that a kid is misbehaving because he/she has an unmet need. As I see it, the difference between infants and older kids (including toddlers) is that with an infant there are only needs but with older kids there are needs and wants. So with an infant, if he/she cries, you address it because he/she needs something, i.e. no crying to manipulate. While a toddler has needs and wants and it's appropriate to not satisfy their wants. I think that if a toddler asks for candy at the store, he/she wants candy because he/she likes the way candy tastes. There is no need there so I'm okay to say no and if he/she throws a fit then we're leaving the store. What "need" could there be in that situation? I guess some would say that the 3 year old needed attention or something? I think I disagree. I think that kids can want candy just because they want candy. Further, I think that a 3 year old can manipulate. I think that they can be mad and act out because they don't get what they want (not need).
I've decided (and yes I know it's easy for me as the mom of an infant to "decide" how I'll parent her when she's 2.5 years old!) that one thing we're absolutely not doing is buying candy or toys when we're at the store. I've seen friends fall into that trap. She's going to get new toys at Christmas and her birthday only. I know this means that there will be many meltdowns in our future at the grocery store and Target.
I've decided (and yes I know it's easy for me as the mom of an infant to "decide" how I'll parent her when she's 2.5 years old!) that one thing we're absolutely not doing is buying candy or toys when we're at the store. I've seen friends fall into that trap. She's going to get new toys at Christmas and her birthday only. I know this means that there will be many meltdowns in our future at the grocery store and Target.
Actually, there won't be meltdowns because of that. When children grow up with the expectation that they don't get stuff every time they go out there's no tantrum at the end. Many times I've just told DD to put something away or that we haven't paid for it so we can't have it. I also let DD pay for each of our purchases when we go out so that she understands that we pay for things that we take out of the store.
That being said, toddlers misbehave for way more reasons than just because of an "unmet need". That's a bunch of psychobabble. I can tell you for a fact that my kid misbehaves sometimes just because she wants to test her boundaries. Other times she misbehaves just because she doesn't understand what's best for her. That's where I, as the parent, have the responsibility to set boundaries and to show her acceptable ways to express her emotions. Temper tantrums are never acceptable and I really do think that parents who feed into them have children who tend to have more tantrums and for a longer duration.
I've decided (and yes I know it's easy for me as the mom of an infant to "decide" how I'll parent her when she's 2.5 years old!) that one thing we're absolutely not doing is buying candy or toys when we're at the store. I've seen friends fall into that trap. She's going to get new toys at Christmas and her birthday only. I know this means that there will be many meltdowns in our future at the grocery store and Target.
Uh huh. Do you think your child will only fuss for toys and candy? if so, brace yourself.
I don't have any toy/candy meltdowns at the store. But we certainly have never set any obscure "you only get treats on major holidays" either.
I think you can strike a balance. My kid would throw a tantrum over grapes. She loves them so much. When we're in the grocery store, we buy grapes. Grapes are her chocolate. Do I avoid grapes until christmas because I don't want to deal with a fussy child?
This is absolutely bizarre logic to me. Also, I know you think you know why kids are throwing tantrums and that you truly believe that by eliminating candy and chocolate except for major holidays that your child will be well behaved, but I find this a bit of a huge avoidance thing.
Your child will have tantrums over a shoe lace. So get ready.
I know that she'll throw tantrums about all kinds of things. I just don't want my kid to expect a little treat every time we go to the store. I got this idea from my SIL and I think it works well for their family. The point isn't to produce a well behaved child but to teach my DD that she doesn't need a lot of junk.
And that's fine. Jo doesn't get a lot of junk. She did however, see a lava lamp in a window during our walk the other day and threw herself on the ground in front of the store demanding said lamp. It was an otherwise charming day with my fairly well behaved toddler.
Tantrums happen. Just beware that your kid will expect you to give them the sun and the moon and the stars because, they think you can, not because you actually gave them something neat once. Don't forget, they'll see other kids getting things and make that connection. These are smart kids.
I had to laugh at the poster who believed it was some 'unmet need.' Yes. Jo's unmet need was in form of a lava lamp.
What I don't get about time-outs is why people put their under 2 (or even under 1) year old in time out - they just don't get it! I'm also not in favor of a "go to your room" sort of time out. I can definitely see the need for a "breather" time out once kiddo is a bit older though.
As for tantrums...kiddo has started having mini-tantrums. Right now I just calmly redirect him and don't acknowledge that he's having a meltdown. I definitely don't think giving in to the tantrum is a good parenting strategy.
I'd also argue that AP isn't about "permissive parenting" - I think that's a big misconception.
LOL! Who knew lava lamps were so enticing!
Breastfeeding Counselor with Breastfeeding USA
Babywearing Guide ** Newborn Carriers
Cloth Diaper Guide
Safe Bed Sharing Info
NC, at this age, the time out is for me. "ok I need a time out." and off I go for a minute.
And yes, beware of the lava lamp.
I bought Emmy some toy keys at Target yesterday because she giggled at them. I'm doomed.
I don't think you have to have rules like, "We NEVER buy any treats when we are at the store." so much as, "When mama says no, mama means no" And really, it's about testing boundaries. It's not about candy/toys/lava lamps. So even if your child never eats a skittle and doesn't know to cry for them, you'll still have a tantrum because they don't want to get in the cart/put their coat on/leave the store/sit on an automatic flushing toilet. Toddlers have tantrums. Period.
Exactly. Thank you for summarizing it better than I.
we use a modified version of time-outs - and we don't call them time-outs (DH is a huge sports fan and DD knows time-out to be sports related, not behavior related)
when she was about 12-15 months old and started having meltdowns, i would tell her it looked like she needed some down time and remove her from the situation - we would both go into another room and she was welcome to either continue her meltdown while i sat quietly and watched or sit with me until she could calm herself - at this point, i didn't leave her alone
when she hit 18-20 months, i started a different approach - i would ask her if she needed to spend some time by herself - usually the answer is "no" and that's enough to get her attention and let her know she needs to have a better attitude - sometimes the answer is "no" but the tantrum continues - when that happens, i either take her into the other room and continue the 12-15 month routine or if Mommy is really the one that needs the time out, then i explain that she needs to calm herself down and come see Mommy when she's feeling better - there is no set time limit and she's welcome back as soon as she's done with her tantrum - she usually comes back fairly quickly and then we hug & kiss/tell her Mommy loves her and explain that Mommy likes it when she's nice and no one wants to play with the mean girl - sometimes she takes longer and will stay in her room after she's calmed down to read a book or play with her toys
like a PP said, you really have to tailor your discipline to each child - and prepare for meltdowns over ANYTHING - we've yet to have a public meltdown because she can't have a toy or candy - but she freaks out at home if she has to wait for grapes or wait to nurse - get ready!!