Why choosing a method of discipline is not as straight forward as you might think.
The purpose of this blog is to discuss the variability among discipline techniques used by multicultural American parents of young children, and the consequences of chosen techniques. It is critical that parents consider various aspects of the unique relationship they share with their child when it comes to discipline, such as maternal warmth and predictability. Choosing an effective form of discipline is not as easy as reading the research on that particular form of discipline, such as harsh versus lax methods, because all children are different. Instead, parents must gain a deeper understanding of why their child is behaving in an inappropriate way, and what factors will make discipline effective or ineffective in their given situation.
We’re all familiar with the time-out. We’ve likely all been there at some point. The child is instructed to temporarily sit on a chair or stand in a corner alone in an attempt to separate them from the environment they just misbehaved in. Usually, this environment is enjoyable for the child, so the separation should help to extinguish the behaviour (Lancaster, 2017). But we don’t talk much of time-ins, which can be equally as effective in changing behaviour; specifically encouraging good behaviour.
A time-in is a more modern, positive parenting practice in which a child is invited to sit with the caregiver and work through a tough moment. Rather than isolating the child, time in’s encourage parents to empathize with their children and help to foster a deeper parent-child connection (Brill, 2019).
We know how important the parent-child relationship is. But if you don’t, let me explain.
Attachment Theory
Before we begin discussing time-ins and time-outs, we should begin with the importance of attachment in infancy and childhood. According to Mary Ainsworth, there are 4 categories of infant attachment. One secure attachment and three insecure attachments which include avoidant, ambivalent/resistant, and disorganized (McLeod, 2018). These attachment styles reflect working models of the self and other as either negative or positive and can have long term effects on the child’s future (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Fortunately, most infants fall into the predominantly secure category. (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Despite all the amazing work done by Ainsworth, she is most widely recognized for her Strange Situation experiment. The experiment involves several separations and reunions between the mother and child which are followed by different behaviour based on the child’s attachment style (McLeod, 2018). For example, securely attached infants will cry when their mother leaves, but they will greet her warmly when she returns. Alternatively, infants who are insecurely attached might appear unbothered that their mother has left them alone and look away from her when she returns. The infant may throw a tantrum, banging their head against the door but resist reunion with their mother, crawling into her lap initially but soon pushing her away (Bartholomew, 2013). A child’s attachment manifests under conditions of threat or danger as a means of maintaining proximity to the caretaker (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 199; Bartholomew, 2013), so the Strange Situation experiment clearly reveals the parent-child relationship.
Infants rely entirely on their parents for survival and regulation, both emotional and physiological so periods of abandonment can be especially distressing for an infant who is not securely attached to a caregiver (Gerhardt, 2015). In fact, for a dependent infant who relies on their caregiver for survival, being left alone or ignored can present a perceived threat to survival. An experience that poses a threat to your life is the psychiatric definition of trauma (Gerhardt, 2015).
That’s not to say that sending a toddler for a time out will count as a traumatic experience.
Time-outs have been researched for decades, although the findings have been controversial. Some researchers proclaim that time-outs are the most effective form of behavioural intervention (Reitman & Drabman, 1996), while others question the effectiveness of this form of discipline. Below is a short video of a young mother who summarizes all of this nicely, discussing how to implement time-ins instead. You can find her blog here: https://www.theparentingjunkie.com/
So what’s the verdict- are time-outs out, and time-ins in? Not necessarily. Each child and parent are different, and so each parent-child relationship will be different too.
Differences in Discipline Techniques
Discipline ranges from harsh to lax, but not much research has explored the outcomes when these methods are used in conjunction with one another (Parent, McKee, & Forehand, 2016). Based on the reports of 615 parents (55% female) regarding their parenting tactics for youth aged 3-17 years old, utilizing both high levels of harsh and lax discipline resulted in the most internalizing symptoms such as withdrawal in youth (Parent et al., 2016). This combination of high harsh discipline (such as spanking), and lax discipline (such as giving back a privilege after its been taken away when the child whines) is known as seesaw parenting, according to Parent et al. (2016).
What does this mean for parents?
These results allude to the importance of predictability when it comes to discipline (Parent et al., 2016). Going back to attachment theory, seesaw discipline can contribute to a disorganized, insecure attachment style in children who have a hard time anticipating what their parent’s next move will be. It is important to note however, that this study employed a cross-sectional, self-report design rather than a longitudinal design, so we should be cautious in interpreting causal conclusions (Parent et al., 2016). The video below explains the importance of following a set of steps when using time-outs. Whether you use time-outs or not, it is critical that children know that you will follow through with your warnings.
Additional literature supports a relationship between harsh discipline and externalizing symptoms, although this form of discipline may have different effects for different children. Maternal warmth may actually act as a moderator for the negative effects of harsh discipline (Germán et al., 2013). In a sample of Mexican American adolescents in grades 7 and 8 from low-income homes, the externalizing effects of harsh discipline were found to depend on maternal warmth (Germán et al., 2013). In conditions of high maternal warmth, there was no relationship between externalizing symptoms and harsh discipline. On the other hand, in conditions of low maternal warmth there was a positive relationship (Germán et al., 2013). These results fall in line with previous research, indicating that behavioural problems are more strongly associated with insecure attachment styles. Adolescents who perceive their mothers’ discipline as coming from a place of love and a desire to protect them will fare better than those who perceive the same discipline as a form of rejection or hostility (Germán et al., 2013). Along with the vast literature on disciplinary techniques, these results suggest that the negative effects of harsh discipline are conditional based on maternal warmth (Germán et al., 2013).
So, while I’m not condoning harsh discipline, the research suggests that fostering that warm, nurturing relationship with your child can reduce the negative effects associated with tougher parenting practices. However, there is evidence that warmer parenting practices overall can lead to better childhood outcomes.
In fact, inductive discipline, which involves parents reminding their children of rules and maternal reasoning, is negatively associated with child externalizing problems (Choe, Olson, & Sameroff, 2013). Often times, the particular behaviour that a child displays will elicit specific discipline practices from their parent. Mothers tend to use physical discipline in response to behavioural problems and inductive discipline in response to social problems. In contrast to physical discipline which asserts the parent’s dominance, inductive discipline emphasizes the consequences of poor behaviour and its implications for the well-being of others (Choe et al., 2013). In a study using a sample of 241 children, 49% females, mothers and teachers provided information about the children’s behaviour at ages 2, 5.5, and 10 years old. Mothers who used more indictive discipline techniques tended to use less physical discipline later on and children had fewer behavioural problems whereas increased use of physical discipline predicted more behavioural problems in children (Choe et al., 2013). It is likely that inductive discipline techniques allow children to internalize socially appropriate behaviour and self regulation whereas physical discipline does not model effective behaviour (Choe et al., 2013). In fact, even mild forms of physical discipline such as spanking could be a risk factor for future adjustment problems.
With all of that being said, the child’s perception of the discipline could mediate these effects. Children who perceive physical punishment as normative are less likely to display aggression later than those who perceive it as unusual (Choe et al., 2013). These findings are similar to the previous study’s results, suggesting that the child’s perception of the discipline as coming from a place of love versus rejection (Germán et al., 2013), or being normal or strange can influence the nature of the child’s future behaviour.
Maybe what parents should be focusing on then, is their relationship with their child rather than the particular discipline techniques they use. If a parent starts using physical punishment as a desperate attempt to discipline a difficult child, they may want to consider the possibility that the problem is rooted in a poor parent-child relationship. Since attachment manifests in moments of distress, an insecure child may act out in an effort to get the attention of their parent, similar to the insecure child who’s distress manifests in the form of banging their head on the wall (Bartholomew, 2013). If a child knows that they must make a fuss to get attention, it might be wiser to utilize time-ins as a moment to connect with the child and explain why their behaviour is inappropriate, rather than separating the child from the parent and making them feel rejected. Inductive discipline present during a time-in would help the child to learn from their mistakes in a way that makes them feel cared for (Choe et al., 2013).
So, you came here to find out whether time-outs are bad, and time-ins are good. I apologize if I didn’t answer your question, but the main takeaway is that it’s not a simple yes or no answer (although the consensus seems to lean in favor of time-ins and other forms of positive parenting practices). The methods that you as a parent use to discipline your child will be unique from the methods of other parents, and that’s okay. The most important thing is to build a good relationship with your child with unconditional love that satisfies their innate need for parental attention.
Below are some additional links about time-outs from professionals, if you’re interested. Enjoy!
Additional Information from the Professionals (A.K.A, people with PhDs)
Dr. Peter Haiman – The Case Against Time-Outs https://www.naturalchild.org/articles/guest/peter_haiman.html
Dr. Deborah McNamara – The Trouble with Time-Outs http://macnamara.ca/portfolio/the-trouble-with-time-outs/
Dr. Maryam Abdullah – Six Ingredients to an Effective Time-Out https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/six_ingredients_to_an_effective_time_out
References
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Phsychology, 61(2), 226-244.
Brill, A. (2019). Time Out vs. Time In: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://www.positiveparentingconnection.net/time-out-vs-time-in-whats-the-difference/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014, March 24). Using Time-Out [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teJ1cO4769U
Choe, D., Olson, S., & Sameroff, A. (2013). The interplay of externalizing problems and physical and inductive discipline during childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(11), 2029-2039. doi: 10.1037/a0032054
Germán, M., Gonzales, N., Bonds McClain, D., Dumka, L., & Millsap, R. (2013). Maternal warmth moderates the link between harsh discipline and later externalizing behaviours for Mexican American adolescents. Parenting, 13(3), 169-177. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2013.756353
Greater Good Science Center. (2019, September 5). How to Help Your Kids Feel Loved [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlFCvgVIiYQ
KGW News. (2019, March 18). Positive Parenting: Researchers say this is the best way to discipline your kids [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=267sE3klahc
Kids In The House. (2013, December 12). Are Time-Outs An Effective Form Of Punishment – Gordon Neufeld, PhD [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So7sJW23xM8
Lancaster, B. (2017). Before Saying ‘Time Out,’ Praise Good Behavior with a ‘Time-In’. Retrieved from https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/childrens-health/before-saying-time-out-praise-good-behavior-a-time
McLeod, S. (2018). Mary Ainsworth. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/mary-ainsworth.html#ref
Parent, J., McKee, L.G. & Forehand, R. (2016). Seesaw Discipline: The interactive effect of harsh and lax discipline on youth psychological adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25,396–406. doi: https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.trentu.ca/10.1007/s10826-015-0244-1
Reitman, D., & Drabman, R. S. (1996). Read my fingertips: A procedure for enhancing the effectiveness of time-out with argumentative children. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18(2), 35-40
The Parenting Junkie. (2015, July 6). Forget Time Out, Try Time In – here’s how [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4-3oNMJmP8
Parenting by the Books 