Max Hrenda
Staff Writer
mhrenda@johnsoncitypress.com
Read More From Max Hrenda
Follow me on:
News
Local News
Education
ETSU
ETSU associate professor of psychology Dr. Jodi Polaha said time-out can be an effective disciplinary tool for children, despite a recent Time magazine article suggesting the contrary. (Contributed photo)
An East Tennessee State University child psychologist has added her voice to the denouncing of a magazine article that suggests “time-outs” are ineffective means of disciplining children.
Dr. Jodi Polaha, an associate professor of psychology at ETSU, said she’s concerned that a Sept. 23 Time magazine article may deter parents from using time-outs as an effective teaching tool, despite decades’ worth of psychological research that indicates the opposite.
“It mischaracterizes time-outs, how they should be used, how it works and what it is,” Polaha said. “They’re arguing it doesn’t work, but they don’t even characterize it right. That’s sort of hard to do.”
Written by Drs. Daniel J. Siegel and Tina Payne Bryson, the article — titled “ ‘Time-outs’ are hurting your child” -— states that new research into the effects of time out on children’s brains indicates that time out may not only be an ineffective disciplinary tool, but that it could be harmful to children, as well.
“When children lose emotional control, parents often put them in their room or by themselves in the ‘naughty chair,’ ” the article reads. “The problem is, children have a profound need for connection.
“When the parental response is to isolate the child, an instinctual psychological need of the child goes unmet. In fact, brain imaging shows that the experience of relational pain — like that caused by rejection — looks very similar to the experience of physical pain in terms of brain activity.”
Instead of a time-out, Siegel and Bryson suggest that parents use a “time-in,” which would involve constant interaction between the child and his or her parents to discuss his or her misbehavior.
Despite the citation of brain-imaging and the suggested psychological ramifications of time-out, psychology associations across the country are speaking out against Siegel and Bryson’s findings.
A statement from the Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology indicated that Siegel and Bryson’s conclusion on the ineffectiveness and potential harm of time-out is misleading, saying, “Decades of carefully controlled studies support the efficacy of time-out when used correctly with regard to the child’s developmental and emotional status and in the context of a broader behavioral management program. It is a disservice to the public to suggest that families try an unproven approach when one with decades of support is available.”
Additionally, the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology said that, when used properly, time-out does not involve isolation and therefore has no demonstrated ill effect. Polaha agreed, adding that elements of the notion of the time-in should be used during each time-out situation.
“When done correctly, time-outs shouldn’t be just about social isolation,” Polaha said. “It only works when you have a really good system for promoting good behavior in the house through a lot of connection, a lot of nurturing, a lot of incentives and rewards and all that relationship that’s so important in families.”
According to Polaha, the ideal time-out is one that is employed consistently for bad behavior that doesn’t occur often, like aggression or persistent non-compliance. When it is over and the child returns to the activity from which he or she was removed, she said, the parent should praise or reward them for their acceptable behavior.
“The message parents should be conveying when they do a time-out is ‘I’m here for you, regardless of what you do, and I’m looking forward to engaging you and rewarding you in the future when you have more success,’ ” Polaha said. “This is maybe a little more different than the way it’s portrayed in the article by Time in that it’s a stand-alone social isolation procedure. That really is not how time-out should be used.”
While she and the psychological organizations said that Siegel and Bryson mischaracterized the notion of time-out, Polaha added that, even if the authors had characterized it correctly, she still thought their conclusions were unfounded.
“They kind of jump to conclusions,” she said. “The idea that folks and children seek proximity and connection during times of distress is interesting, and that there’s brain-based findings that support that is interesting, but it’s not prescriptive. It doesn’t mean, ergo, it’s therapeutic to provide that. The fact that we seek that when we’re distressed doesn’t mean that we need that.
“It’s sort of like when you haven’t had a cigarette for a while and you seek nicotine. It doesn’t mean you need more nicotine. It’s not therapeutic; it solved the problem at the moment, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the right thing to do.”
Follow Max Hrenda on Twitter @MaxLHrenda. Like him on Facebook at facebook.com/jcpresshrenda.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus
Open all references in tabs: [1 - 5]