Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Time-out (TO) is the most commonly used procedure of child disciplinary tactic in the United States. TO, the abbreviation for time-out from positive reinforcement, was first tested with laboratory animals in the 1950s (Ferster, 1958) and subsequently widely used for treatment of child misbehavior, the successes of which have been reported regularly since the early 1960s (Wolf & colleagues, 1964). The laboratory version typically involved limiting animal access to motivating activities such as eating or drinking. The child version involved limiting the child's access to preferred experiences, especially social interaction and all forms of entertainment. In both versions, TO regularly produced a remarkable effect, a dramatic reduction in the behaviors for which it was used as a consequence. Numerous replications of this effect, coupled with the fact that TO proved to be much more socially acceptable than corporal punishment, resulted in widespread dissemination of TO as a child disciplinary tactic. At present, a professional or popular book on child management techniques that does not include a section on TO would be hard to find.

Underlying Processes of Time-Out

The fundamental process underlying the utility of TO involves an aspect of how children learn. Research on learning by the most eminent behavioral scientists of the 20th century shows that child learning largely occurs as result of the experiences that result from what children do. TO is used to deter children from certain types of behavior. Research on learning shows that when children do something that leads to unpleasant experiences such as being scolded, punished, or penalized (i.e., put in TO), they are less likely to repeat what they have done. For children to readily learn deterrence, two fundamental components are necessary, repetition and experiential contrast. The number of repetitions needed for learning to occur is governed by the amount of contrast between the child's experience that precedes and that follows things they do. For example, early in life children are at risk for being burned by open flame (e.g., from a candle) because it is inherently beautiful and they are inclined to touch it. One touch, however, generates such an extraordinary amount of unpleasant experiential contrast that it generates a virtual lifetime of caution around open flame. That is, virtually no repetition is needed for learning the connection. Conversely, numerous repetitions can be necessary to learn a connection between ignoring a parent's commands and unpleasant outcomes because many parents apply consequences inconsistently (Friman & Blum, 2003).

In sum, child learning occurs as a result of repetition followed by experiential contrast. Using TO effectively merely involves exploiting this salient fact of child learning. Specifically, an effective TO involves establishing an unpleasant experience that contrasts sharply with the child's experience prior to the TO. Ensuring the right level of contrast requires use of the companion procedure, time-in (TI).

TI can be thought of as the functional opposite of TO. TO is an experientially unpleasant event used as a consequence for misbehavior and TI involves experientially pleasant events that occur in the absence of misbehavior. There are many ways to establish TI, the most common of which

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading