Is it cruel to send your child to his room for a limited time? The so-called “time out” method – “temps-mort” in French – is controversial. Defender of positive education, psychologist Caroline Goldman advocates this exclusion. “This avoids falling into the trap of shouting, blows, verbal and physical violence, resentment, repetitive and aggressive debates that take the place of other much more fundamental relational proposals for children”, explains in The world the daughter of Jean-Jaques Goldman, a doctor in clinical psychopathology who has become the darling of supporters of a firmer education. Of “training” him respond the philosopher Pierre Vesperini, who sees in it a return to “behaviorist” psychology.
Director of research at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and director of the “Cognitive Development and Pathology” team within the cognitive and psycholinguistic science laboratory of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris (ENS), Franck Ramus make the point on scientific studies. This great specialist in the cognitive development of the child criticizes as much the positions steeped in psychoanalysis of Caroline Goldman as the “slightly naive good intentions” of positive education. He regrets that “scientific research in psychology is so little known in France”. Interview.
The Express: In The world, psychologist Caroline Goldman believes that the “time out” method, which consists of setting aside a child for a limited time, is “the subject of scientific consensus”. The philosopher Pierre Vesperini answered him with a forum citing contrary studies, and comparing the practice to a “training”. What does the scientific research really say about the effectiveness of time-outs?
Frank Ramus: There is a considerable body of scientific research on the effectiveness of child behavior management methods, including hundreds of randomized controlled trials rigorously comparing different methods. They say that the time-out is neither a torture, nor a training technique, nor a panacea. It is a useful tool if it is used within the framework of a behavioral method which has demonstrated its effectiveness, but it is never the central element.
Today, the best methods of behavior regulation are all based on the idea of explicitly teaching the child the expected behaviors, and using compliments and possibly rewards to facilitate their acquisition. This is called positive behavior reinforcement.
Punishments are used to reduce certain behaviors. But they generate negative emotions and other undesirable effects and are not very effective in modifying behavior. This is why they have almost disappeared from all validated methods. The time-out, which is the least severe form of punishment, is the only one that can still be recommended. But never alone, only as part of a positive behavior support program, and only if used effectively.
So how should this time-out be used?
The child should be isolated briefly, either in a separate room or in a dedicated area of the same room. The main goal is to remove him from the stimuli that reinforce his behavior (in particular the attention of the parents), and to allow him to calm down. Contrary to how it is most often used by parents, the time-out should be kept short, 1 to 4 minutes, maximum 5 minutes. Beyond that, it has no additional efficacy, and the undesirable effects increase.
““Caroline Goldman is part of a long tradition of media shrinks who have answers to everything on all subjects””
Anger and shouting are to be avoided: it must be administered in a calm manner, like the simple application of a measure defined and explained in advance for well-identified behaviors. And again, it only makes sense if it is part of a comprehensive behavioral method that promotes a warm and satisfying relationship, and includes explicit teaching of the behaviors that you want to replace the problem behaviors.
Can time-out have a “neurological impact” on the child, as Pierre Vesperini suggests?
No, no neuroscience study has ever shown that. These are baseless extrapolations from studies of actual abuse. Research on the effects of time-out has shown that it does not cause harmful effects for the child, including in children who already have a history of trauma or abuse.
Why do you criticize the vision of time-out promoted by Caroline Goldman?
Because it promotes the use of time-out disconnected from all scientific research on the subject, without including the more general approach of reinforcing positive behavior, and without ever giving parents the keys to the effectiveness of this practice. Moreover, it recommends time-out durations (half an hour or more) in total contradiction with the data on efficacy and with the requirement of benevolence.
Caroline Goldman has been in the media for some time, some going so far as to compare her to a new Françoise Dolto…
She certainly doesn’t have the influence of Dolto, Fortunately ! But it is part of a long tradition of media shrinks who have answers to everything on all subjects (like Naouri, Rufo, Cyrulnik, Halmos…). These “good customers” are very appreciated because they save lazy journalists from searching on each subject. a truly competent expert (scientific expertise is rare and no one can possess it on all subjects).
You criticize him for attributing, in a Freudian approach, all the children’s problems to the parents. For what ?
Like many psychoanalysts, she is in a form of denial of the existence of neurodevelopmental disorders (autism, ADHD, learning disabilities), seeing in them only symptoms of relational problems between parents and children. In addition to wrongly making parents feel guilty (all children’s problems are due to their incompetence), it still too often leads to refusals or delays in diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.
Caroline Goldman criticizes in particular an over-diagnosis of attention deficit disorders (ADHD), which would be used to sell very lucrative “tests” and “molecules”. What about?
Indeed it conveys this totally conspiratorial theory of the origin of ADHD that I have already had the opportunity to refute. In fact, the disorder has been described multiple times for a long time (as early as 1798), long before methylphenidate and its effects on attention were discovered. It is therefore not a pure invention of “Big Pharma”!
Isn’t she right when she berates the excesses of positive education In France ?
I have not dug the methods of positive education thoroughly, but she is probably not wrong on this point. Positive education has the merit of promoting great benevolence towards the child by prohibiting punishment. But the alternatives that this current proposes (explain again and again to the child) do not seem sufficiently effective, which means that it generates cohorts of distraught parents who are perfect clients for Caroline Goldman.
It is a shame that scientific research in psychology is so little known in France, because it offers effective alternatives both to the somewhat naive good intentions of positive education, to psychoanalysis, and to the more repressive approaches that come too of course to parents.