New Posts  All Forums:
 

Time outs

post #1 of 46
6/20/06 at 11:34pm
Thread Starter 
I have a question for all you experienced GD'ers out there...

Are there differences between time outs? Can time-outs ever be a logical consequence to something (I know they would not be a natural consequence)

I know some families choose to use a number of minutes based on the child's age... that seems artificial to me.

When I was a child, I was given timeouts by my reasonably gentle parents... they were generally a consequence for throwing a whole-hearted fit. The phrase used was... "you can go sit in (a separate room) until you are ready to come back and be with us" This typically took me about 30 seconds to 5 minutes depending on how mad and frustrated I was. I think it started around the age of 4 or so... before that I think my mom just rode out tantrums as natural toddler behavior.

What do you think of this? It certainly cut down on my stimulation which was exacerbating the situation, plus it deprived me of an audience. I remember not liking to go somewhere else, but I did always calm down significantly quicker there than in the place where the whole thing started.

All opinions are welcomed... obviously, I've got a good 4 years before I have to think about this

Thanks,
Erin
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:03am
I am not a fan of the traditional Time Out. I think it can send the message that when the child acts a certain way, the parent will no longer want to be around them. Basically, using withdrawal of affection as a punishment. Kids can learn that the sooner they stuff the emotion, the better. It doesn't really teach them any coping skills. In my experience, negative reinforcement is not a very effective teaching tool anyway. Most people would agree it would be useless to punish a child for not knowing math--the child wouldn't learn any faster. I think young children have tantrums because they have not yet learned how to cope with difficult emotions. We can help them by showing them how to identify their feelings, by accepting all of their feelings, and helping them find better outlets.
post #3 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:05am
I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but time outs have been useful for my son at times. We don't use them for tantrums, those he needs me to be there talking to him or just listening. But we use them when he just gets so manic that he can't listen or reason, he just keeps repeating hurtful or dangerous behavior in an uncontrollable manner. Once we have tried other methods and they don't work, then we use the time-out as a way for him to get away from stimulus and to settle down. He often asks for a hug on his way to time out and he always gets one. We use the age = minutes as a general guideline, but if he can calm down sooner, he is done. And we always process why he was in time out once he is done, how he can deal with the situation better next time, and spend lots of time hugging/snuggling.
post #4 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:13am
I am torn on this one. I think time-outs are not a good idea when they seek to ostracize a child who needs attention. But I think they are a good idea if they prevent a parent from snapping and screaming or hitting.

Also, I have given time-outs that I feel good about and ones that I feel awful about. The bad ones were when I felt angry and removed Sorin because I was losing it.

The good ones maybe aren't even technically "time outs." During these, I would sit with my son while he tantrumed and hold and soothe him -- a "time out" from whatever was generating such emotion in him. Those times when I felt compassionate and totally in control of myself, I did not feel the break in action was punitive. So I think it does depend on how/when you use them.
post #5 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:38am
i'm new to gd but i like time outs. they seem to be a very logical consequence to my main discipline problem wich is just getting too loud too wild too in your face. its logical b/c it removes the "look at me" factor. as well as removing dd from whatever has set her off. going to her room seems to help her calm down. i don't set a time that she must stay in there either she will calm down and come outt or i hear that she has calmed and go in and tell her she can come out. i kind of review w/ her why she had to go to her room and ask if shes ready to settle down. she usually is.
post #6 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:42am
In all honesty, when I was a child I would choose spanking over a time-out (I got both ) any day.

The way I saw it - physical pain came and was gone soon. But the time-out in isolation was terrifying on many levels: "Do my parents still love me?" "What if they send me away for good?" "I think there is a monster under my bed and I am all by myself in the room"

So, I would be afraid to cry out loud and try as hard as I can to keep the "stiff upper lip" in hopes that I would be "back in favor"

Of course between all of those thoughts who had time to think about whatever my "misdemeanor" was...

I am very against spanking. And very very against time-outs.

DIsclamer - I am talking "traditional" time-outs, I know some mamas here practice so called time-ins, where they would sit together with a child and help them calm down. Those I think can be helpful.
post #7 of 46
6/21/06 at 1:33am
Personally, I think it totally depends on 2 things:

1) What you're giving the time out for
and
2) How you give the time out

I think the only kind of time out I can get behind, is one where you are separating a child who is physically harming someone else (a sibling, friend, parent, pet, or really destroying property)....and even then I don't think you should isolate the child from contact with people (especially yourself), but mostly do a 'change of scenery' type thing to try to short circuit whatever was going on that caused the aggression in the first place. That's about the only time I can think of that I would use a time-out-ish type of thing. I would use it as an open-ended opportunity in a different location from the event to regroup and figure out what happened with the child.

Even at just 2-1/2, DS does NOT like to be comforted, hugged, or whatever when he's really upset...so I just stay nearby, talk to him calmly, and let him know when he needs or wants a hug I'm there for him....so I wouldn't necessarily be doing a "time-in" where I was holding/cuddling him, but I wouldn't leave him alone in the room...

Time outs for non-violent issues don't make a lot of sense to me personally, as they focus the child on the consequence imposed on them (the child being isolated or put in a separate place) as opposed to getting into the reason they were doing whatever in the first place, and trying to solve that with them instead. I'm more into being proactive than reactive as much as possible, and I see traditional time outs mostly as reactive. It goes to the: I want them to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do (not because they're afraid of what will happen to THEM if they don't), and to NOT do the wrong thing because it's the wrong thing (not because they're afraid of what will happen to THEM if they get caught)...switching the focus from how their actions impact THEM to how they impact OTHERS...which I don't think traditional time outs do.

However, if a time out, or a "parent" time out (parent leaves the room) will give a parent a moment to regroup, cool off, and not shame or hit their child, then a time out would DEFINITELY the preferred thing in my book.

As I said, depends on several factors. I don't think they are inherently evil, but overused and not terribly effective in the traditional mainstream sense.
post #8 of 46
6/21/06 at 1:35am
Every single child has a deep-rooted, instinctual fear of abandonment. I can't see the point of building up a strong attachment to a baby, only to use that as a manipulative tool later on.

Ask yourself why a timeout works to control behaviours. It's not because they "get time to cool down" because they can do that with you (so-called "time in"). It's the isolation that is the coercive factor.
post #9 of 46
6/21/06 at 1:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piglet68
Ask yourself why a timeout works to control behaviours. It's not because they "get time to cool down" because they can do that with you (so-called "time in"). It's the isolation that is the coercive factor.
Good point. This is the difference between the ones I felt good about (time-ins, although I'd forgotten about that term) and the ones I felt awful about (coercive) and will strive never to repeat. Sorin has asked me before during one of the bad ones, "Mommy, do you still love me?" That broke my heart. So I guess this is an area I am working on. Time-ins and traditional time-outs
post #10 of 46
6/21/06 at 8:58am
I think there is a difference between punitive and non-punitive time-outs. Kids are smart--they know when they're being punished and when they're not. There is a difference between separating a child from a stressful situation and giving them time and space to calm down, as opposed to separating them out as punishment for being "bad."

"Time-ins" work for some, but some people, children included, really need to be left alone for awhile in order to calm down and deal with whatever is happening to them.

But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a non-punitive time-out as long as it really is non-punitive (some parents claim to do non-punitive time-outs, but it is really meant as a punishment, and kids can pick up on that).
post #11 of 46
6/21/06 at 9:37am
Time outs don't always have to fee like abandonment. There are as many styles of time out as there are styles of families and family dynamics (for example, time outs do not necessarily have to entail isolation of the child from the parent). I think it is simplistic and hyperbolic to say that time outs = feelings of abandonment on the part of the child.

ETA: I think that, when executed in a way that is sensitive to the individual child's temperament and spirit, time outs can be a loving intervention on the part of a parent to help their child learn to gain mastery over their destructive or harmful impulses.
post #12 of 46
6/21/06 at 9:56am
Thread Starter 
It sounds like time outs are about the same as any type of consequence... depending on how you decide to use them, they can be good or bad...

In an attachment parenting household, if used appropriately (only when the child can't calm down from a very stressful situation without being removed from a stimulus and parent present and loving if at all possible), children seem to understand the reasoning behind a time out. Although it may not be their favorite idea, they don't feel unloved or abandoned.

In a punitive household, where children are often just looking for any attention (even negative), time outs are even worse than spanking b/c they are the removal of all attention.

I never once thought my parents didn't love me b/c I had to go to another room, but they were very loving, attached parents otherwise. Timeouts were probably the very WORST consequence I ever faced, and they were child-led, in that I could come back whenever I wanted, even if I were still upset... generally by then I could use my words to express what I needed. If it had come from an angry, punitive place, I'm sure I would remember it differently now.

However, I do agree they seem to be overused in this society... almost like they have become the only alternative to spanking...

We'll put them on the (try other alternatives first and use with caution) shelf, but not the (NEVER EVER USE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE) shelf, if that makes sense.


Thanks for your insight,
Erin
post #13 of 46
6/21/06 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonconformnmom
Time outs don't always have to fee like abandonment. There are as many styles of time out as there are styles of families and family dynamics (for example, time outs do not necessarily have to entail isolation of the child from the parent). I think it is simplistic and hyperbolic to say that time outs = feelings of abandonment on the part of the child.
I specified that I was talking about the traditional time-out, which does include isolation, and is a form of punishment. Other things, where the parent is still there to comfort the child, and the child is not forced or made to sit for a specified amount of time are not time-outs in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
I think there is a difference between punitive and non-punitive time-outs. Kids are smart--they know when they're being punished and when they're not.
Well, often something feels to a child like punishment, even when the parent says it's not a punishment. I can't imagine being told I had to sit for X number of minutes and not thinking that was a punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
There is a difference between separating a child from a stressful situation and giving them time and space to calm down, as opposed to separating them out as punishment for being "bad."
It can be good and necessary to seperate a child from a stressful situation and help them calm down, but why would you call that a time-out?
post #14 of 46
6/21/06 at 11:15am
I like the idea of a comfort corner. I know I didn't coin the phrase or the idea, but I can't remember who did ---

Anyway, it is basically a place you set up in the main living area (so there is no isolation involved.) It is not a punitive place, it ideally should be welcoming, comfortable and contain a few things which are calming -- a favorite blanket, a stuffed bear, a calming book etc....

The idea is to teach your children to deal with overwhelming emotions in a healthy way. When things begin getting a bit too stressful, it isn't a "GET IN YOUR COMFORT CORNER" thing (defeats the purpose ) it is more like "Wow, things are becoming really stressful, can you come over here with mama so we can calm down?" then you lead your child over to the corner, sit down, engage in a book, or a cuddle, or be there to empathize during the tantrum or whatever.... then when it subsides, talk about it, of course, according to the age of the child and their understanding etc. "I thought we both needed a break". It can be helpful to small children to help give them the words if you know what the problem was. "You seemed really angry before. Is it because mama didn't want you to p[lay with the knife (or whatever).? I took it because I was afraid you would get hurt, but I would love to play _____ or _______ with you now if you like."

I love the idea of a comfort corner because (imo) it is parenting for the end result, not in the moment parenting or immediate result parenting. The outcome I desire is a well adjusted adult who knows that we still love her even if she is acting in a way that may be less than wonderful, that we won't abandon her, that we discuss things with her, that we give her a welcoming place and a chance to cool down, and that she can survive upsetment and come out the other side a happy person.

I advocate it because to me it feels like the best of both worlds. A place to cool off, the child is removed from the situation (or removes themself voluntarily) but not isolated, it is not a punitive place, and the lines are open for communication.

Good luck
post #15 of 46
6/21/06 at 11:34am
We do not use time-outs. I never experienced one as a child so I have no idea how it feels. But we have chosen to be a non-punishment household and IMO time-outs fall into that catagory. I like the idea of a comfort corner although up until now (dd is almost 3), dd's biggest comfort is dh or I so if she needs to calm down, our laps are the first choice. Also, I do not think loud, in-your-face, attention-getting bahavior is "bad" or needs to be addressed other than helping dd to refill her tank. It almost always only appears when we have been too busy and truly are not giving her the attention she needs. It is frustrating when it occurs during a time when I "need" to get something done. But that is life with a small child.
post #16 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacelovingmama
Time-ins and traditional time-outs
:

We time out when I’ve tried everything I can think of and I’m all out of ideas. It’s my last ditch don’t know what to do now parenting tool. And honestly the time out is for me, so I can regroup and think of something new or at least wait for the atmosphere to change and my son and I to connect again. I never set a time or leave my son alone, most of the time out’s we have done have been with him on my lap. I think the way we do it helps teach him to gain control of himself (that’s what I hope anyway.) I don’t want our time out’s (or rather time in’s) to be punitive at all but rather a way for the both us to calm down and gain a little perspective and self-discipline. I like post like this because it makes me reexamine my motives and give lots of good idea for refining my own parenting.
post #17 of 46
6/21/06 at 12:52pm
We don't do time-out. We tried it a couple times and ds (2.5) really didn't understand. And when I honestly looked at the situation--he only "misbehaves" when something else is going on. Either he is overtired, or he has eaten something he's sensitive to (he can't have dairy), or he's reacting to me kind of putting off giving him attention, etc. There is always something I can change about the situation that will help him to behave more "appropriately" other than punishing him.

Most of the time (if it's not an overtired or allergy issue) I have a lot of success by showing him what he CAN do rather than what he can't do. Some examples: the other day he kept climbing on the back of the sofa and sitting there. I know some people allow this in their home and that's their choice but I feel ds needs to learn in our family we do not consider that appropriate (we and other relatives are routinely annoyed by the cousins who come over and have no idea that people might not like it if you jump up and down on their sofa). Anyway so I don't want DS climbing on furniture. I picked him up and set him down on the seat part of the sofa and asked him not to climb. He climbed back up. I set him down again and repeated my request. He climbed back up. This is where I think a lot of parents get frustrated and use a "punishment" like time-out because they feel they are being defied and the child has to learn who is in charge. My approach is different. I said, "DS, I can see you really feel like climbing right now. Let's go outside and you can climb on your playset." So we went outside and he climbed up the ladder and slid down the slide for a while. IMO ds learned from this that I will not allow him to climb on the furniture, but that there ARE acceptable places for him to climb. Is this exact approach always workable? No, of course not. Maybe it is raining or freezing cold outside. Maybe I have a younger baby who is napping and I don't want to leave her alone inside. So in that case I would try something else. Maybe I would pick up DS' baby doll or bear and model the unwanted behavior in a goofy way. I would put the bear up on the back of the sofa and say, "Bear! You know you are not supposed to climb up there! Your feet might get dirt on the sofa cushions! You might fall and get an owie!" Etc. I would get ds into the game of explaining to bear why we don't do that. Then I would have bear go climb something he is allowed to climb. Maybe make a little tower of wooden blocks and let bear climb up on that. Etc.

This sort of approach takes more energy and patience than time-out, but I LOVE not having an adversarial, "obey me or else" relationship with my son. It is so worth it. He is SUCH a sweetie and I want him to always know I am on his side.

I was sharing my philosophy on this with a friend yesterday and she shared an interesting POV from a book she had read. The subject was the futility of trying to change people's behavior by offering rewards. The idea being expressed was that people usually try to do the best they can do in a situation, and if they are "failing," an incentive/reward isn't necessarily going to help them know how to do better. She gave the example that if a person was drowning you wouldn't hold a dollar over their head and tell them, "Here, if you don't drown you can have this dollar." And I realized you could say the exact same thing about punishment. You wouldn't spank a person who was drowning as a way to teach them not to drown.
post #18 of 46
6/21/06 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wednesday
She gave the example that if a person was drowning you wouldn't hold a dollar over their head and tell them, "Here, if you don't drown you can have this dollar." And I realized you could say the exact same thing about punishment. You wouldn't spank a person who was drowning as a way to teach them not to drown.
Oooh, I am stealing this one!
post #19 of 46
6/21/06 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnysideup
Well, often something feels to a child like punishment, even when the parent says it's not a punishment. I can't imagine being told I had to sit for X number of minutes and not thinking that was a punishment.
Right, I wasn't talking about a "stay here for x minutes and think about what you did" kind of time-out. That would be punitive. I was talking about what pandora's parents did, and what we do at our house, which is basically just giving the child (or adult) space to calm down and letting him come back when he's ready.

Quote:
It can be good and necessary to seperate a child from a stressful situation and help them calm down, but why would you call that a time-out?
I don't know; it's just a term. You could call it "calming down space" or whatever you wanted. At our house people mostly give themselves time-outs. My dh has given me a time-out on a few occasions, definitely not as punishment. So I do think it's an issue of how it's used.
post #20 of 46
6/21/06 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
I don't know; it's just a term. You could call it "calming down space" or whatever you wanted. At our house people mostly give themselves time-outs. My dh has given me a time-out on a few occasions, definitely not as punishment. So I do think it's an issue of how it's used.
I have to agree with this. Sometimes my ds gets very wound up and starts pushing around my niece. If he gets too aggressive, he has to calm down. We have a little chair next to the couch, and ds will sit there, with me sitting next to him on the couch, when he just needs a breather. I don't view it as abandonment, and I am certain ds doesn't either, as I will sometimes hold his hand while he sits there. I believe he knows it is a "breather chair" for when he has picked on his cousin one too many times. I don't force him to sit there, and he pretty much understands that he can get up when he is ready to get up. I suppose I am a believer in natural, logical consequences, and ds needs some guidance on what is acceptable treatment of others.