As a general rule of thumb... If it's a weird thing to do to an adult it's an unnatural consequence. So I would think of it differently. When an adult is misbehaving/acting like a fool the natural consequence is isolation. The cause is their behavior, the result is isolation.
The difference between this and time out is in the case of time out the parent is the cause of time out, not their behavior. You don't want to be the cause of time out, you want their behavior to be. And the natural consequence is isolation. As a parent your job isn't to punish them for acting out, instead you're choosing to not be around them because you don't want to be.
So there's a few ways to apply this.
Let's say your kid is at the park playing. One scenario is your kid is being rude to other kids in some way (taking toys, not playing nice, whatever). This is a place where the kids can face the conflict themselves and learn how to navigate conflict. Taking something from them creates inability to navigate conflict. This is what leads to "crazy" girlfriends storming in on their boyfriends and unplugging their xbox while they're in the middle of a game. It causes them to impose unnatural and extreme consequences on others later. So letting them be in a challenging conflict and learn how to communicate is better for them. Naturally if they are mean the other kids won't want to play with them any more, and being rejected from the tribe is as strong a natural consequence as they can get. A blow which would be softened by a parent swooping in.
Another scenario might be disobedience. Is misbehavior just disrespect and disobedience? Do you expect adults to obey you? Why must your kids obey you? Why do you require obedience in this scenario? Is it because they appear to be doing something dangerous? Is it because you want to leave and they won't stop playing? In which case are they actually misbehaving or are they just not compliant with your unnatural demands and schedule? Is it that they are disobedient or just that you're impatient and reactive? Whose energy is the problem in this case? If an adult doesn't obey what is the real world consequence? You do something else without them. So exclusion is a natural consequence.
When someone misbehaves around you as an adult the natural consequence of that is your desire changes.
For example, you're wanting to go to the playground with everyone and then get ice cream. A bad parent may attempt to control their child by threatening "you won't get ice cream if you don't comply with my demands, stop being selfish and do what I say." The kid, living in their own world, is thinking "why are you telling me not to be selfish when you're the one being selfish, can't you see I'm playing?" There is only antagonism between parent and child. The unnatural consequence is you get frustrated because of the stories you tell, you take that frustration out on the child as punishment. This means "if I don't comply I face my parent's wrath" which teaches them absolutely nothing about the world and only makes them fear their parent's wrath in everything they do.
The better approach is natural consequences for being rude. If they're being rude and disrespectful the natural consequence is your desire to get them ice cream is no longer there. You get them ice cream because you want to do something nice for them. Not to purchase obedience. So when it comes time to get ice cream you get ice cream for everyone else but them. When they ask "where's my ice cream" you said "you were mean so I didn't want to get it for you any more." When they respond with "but mommy I want it waaa" you say "no you don't get ice cream because you were being mean and rude so I didn't want to get it for you." Their behavior changed your desire. They want something and your response is a healthy boundary of "I don't want to do that for you." You don't threaten "you won't get ice cream if you don't behave." You simply don't get them ice cream when the time comes. This will be a FAR stronger natural consequence than threatening it to get their compliance. Not getting something they wanted because of what they did earlier is far more painful then the threat of not getting it. More often than not those threats are empty and they know it. The goal doesn't need to be "return my child to perfect behavior ASAP." Instead, it needs to be "teach them how to behave." Which can be done over a longer period of time through natural consequences.
They will learn that the cause is their behavior, the effect is they don't get dessert because you didn't want to give it to them. So their behavior changes your desire rather than evoking wrath, which is a reaction. You let them face the consequence of their choices without threats or negotiations. The negotiation starts when you threaten a consequence. If there is threat of a consequence it is imposed and unnatural. So you must avoid being emotionally manipulated by your child while also not worrying about being liked by them. You get manipulated when you purchase good behavior through threats, they get wiggle room because they think you are the one making the choice and they believe they can change your mind later. But if the consequence is natural, you see their behavior like you see anyone behaving that way. You are shaping them into healthy adults, so acting like a poorly behaved human should be received the same way as you would receive it from an adult. Your desire should change. You love them and enjoy them and want to get ice cream TOGETHER. It's not a tool you use to purchase compliance, it's an experience you get to have because you want to have it. So the moment you don't want to have that experience, don't have it.
The strongest response here is to talk about wanting to get ice cream, but when one sibling is misbehaving, you change your mind and just go home without explanation. When they ask if you are getting ice cream you simply say "I don't want it any more, your brother was rude and not fun to be around so I'm just going to go home." This brings in the bigger tribal programming of "but I was good why do I get punished because my brother misbehaved?" Which will encourage them to regulate each other's behavior better. The key is not using threats, just concrete responses. You do this once or twice and it'll never be a problem again. It turns into "why are you mad at me, I was only getting ice cream because I wanted to do something with you, not because I promised you something as payment for you coming on errands with me."
If time out is a response to siblings hitting each other we don't want to teach them to communicate through violence. So we have to wonder where they learned to hit each other and why that's the ventilation for their frustration or anger. Them using hitting as a pathway for these emotions is where the error is. They KNOW not to hit each other pretty quickly. What they don't know is how to manage their frustration and anger, they don't know why they are angry. This is where communicating with them and asking questions can help them understand far better than any punishment could. Punishment just makes them sneakier about it. Helping them understand their own choices and giving them better outlets for their frustration is where your wisdom comes in. Maybe they hit each other and both get hurt, those are natural consequences and no further punishment is required. What is required is helping them understand themselves so they can navigate those situations better next time.
In most cases time out is more about the parent being impatient and wanting a quick resolution. In gymnastics I used to have parents who had very disobedient kids. They'd send them into gymnastics hoping they'd learn some discipline. In the early stages of coaching I was told to just kick those kids out (time out) because it was a safety hazard to have them jumping on equipment out of turn. And that solution worked for very short bursts but never cleaned up their behavior long term. They just became the kid who got kicked out all the time and they got special attention for acting out -- the coach constantly had to tell them to stand in line. So instead of constantly demanding obedience out of these kids I did two things. First, I would give them leadership and agency, they were put in charge of something that they had to pay attention to. Second, I made them sit aside when we'd play a fun game. The combination of these two things brought them back into the class. Sitting out away from doing the thing they want gave them the contrast of "if I play when I'm not supposed to, I don't get to play with everyone when it's actually what I want to do." So it wasn't done as a threat to get compliance, but as a natural consequence that later made them want to behave because the consequence of not behaving meant later they were left out of something they wanted to do. Giving them leadership made them feel significant and attended to, and usually kids who act out like this want to feel significant or worthy and since they don't feel that at home their only mechanism for that attention is to be rambunctious. These kids were 4-10yrs old btw. But I found time out just didn't work well for anyone. The more nuanced version of sit on the sidelines and watch the thing you want to be a part of was far stronger and a little more natural too.
Incredible article! I do have a question- Would time out be considered an unnatural consequence for younger children when they are misbehaving?
As a general rule of thumb... If it's a weird thing to do to an adult it's an unnatural consequence. So I would think of it differently. When an adult is misbehaving/acting like a fool the natural consequence is isolation. The cause is their behavior, the result is isolation.
The difference between this and time out is in the case of time out the parent is the cause of time out, not their behavior. You don't want to be the cause of time out, you want their behavior to be. And the natural consequence is isolation. As a parent your job isn't to punish them for acting out, instead you're choosing to not be around them because you don't want to be.
So there's a few ways to apply this.
Let's say your kid is at the park playing. One scenario is your kid is being rude to other kids in some way (taking toys, not playing nice, whatever). This is a place where the kids can face the conflict themselves and learn how to navigate conflict. Taking something from them creates inability to navigate conflict. This is what leads to "crazy" girlfriends storming in on their boyfriends and unplugging their xbox while they're in the middle of a game. It causes them to impose unnatural and extreme consequences on others later. So letting them be in a challenging conflict and learn how to communicate is better for them. Naturally if they are mean the other kids won't want to play with them any more, and being rejected from the tribe is as strong a natural consequence as they can get. A blow which would be softened by a parent swooping in.
Another scenario might be disobedience. Is misbehavior just disrespect and disobedience? Do you expect adults to obey you? Why must your kids obey you? Why do you require obedience in this scenario? Is it because they appear to be doing something dangerous? Is it because you want to leave and they won't stop playing? In which case are they actually misbehaving or are they just not compliant with your unnatural demands and schedule? Is it that they are disobedient or just that you're impatient and reactive? Whose energy is the problem in this case? If an adult doesn't obey what is the real world consequence? You do something else without them. So exclusion is a natural consequence.
When someone misbehaves around you as an adult the natural consequence of that is your desire changes.
For example, you're wanting to go to the playground with everyone and then get ice cream. A bad parent may attempt to control their child by threatening "you won't get ice cream if you don't comply with my demands, stop being selfish and do what I say." The kid, living in their own world, is thinking "why are you telling me not to be selfish when you're the one being selfish, can't you see I'm playing?" There is only antagonism between parent and child. The unnatural consequence is you get frustrated because of the stories you tell, you take that frustration out on the child as punishment. This means "if I don't comply I face my parent's wrath" which teaches them absolutely nothing about the world and only makes them fear their parent's wrath in everything they do.
The better approach is natural consequences for being rude. If they're being rude and disrespectful the natural consequence is your desire to get them ice cream is no longer there. You get them ice cream because you want to do something nice for them. Not to purchase obedience. So when it comes time to get ice cream you get ice cream for everyone else but them. When they ask "where's my ice cream" you said "you were mean so I didn't want to get it for you any more." When they respond with "but mommy I want it waaa" you say "no you don't get ice cream because you were being mean and rude so I didn't want to get it for you." Their behavior changed your desire. They want something and your response is a healthy boundary of "I don't want to do that for you." You don't threaten "you won't get ice cream if you don't behave." You simply don't get them ice cream when the time comes. This will be a FAR stronger natural consequence than threatening it to get their compliance. Not getting something they wanted because of what they did earlier is far more painful then the threat of not getting it. More often than not those threats are empty and they know it. The goal doesn't need to be "return my child to perfect behavior ASAP." Instead, it needs to be "teach them how to behave." Which can be done over a longer period of time through natural consequences.
They will learn that the cause is their behavior, the effect is they don't get dessert because you didn't want to give it to them. So their behavior changes your desire rather than evoking wrath, which is a reaction. You let them face the consequence of their choices without threats or negotiations. The negotiation starts when you threaten a consequence. If there is threat of a consequence it is imposed and unnatural. So you must avoid being emotionally manipulated by your child while also not worrying about being liked by them. You get manipulated when you purchase good behavior through threats, they get wiggle room because they think you are the one making the choice and they believe they can change your mind later. But if the consequence is natural, you see their behavior like you see anyone behaving that way. You are shaping them into healthy adults, so acting like a poorly behaved human should be received the same way as you would receive it from an adult. Your desire should change. You love them and enjoy them and want to get ice cream TOGETHER. It's not a tool you use to purchase compliance, it's an experience you get to have because you want to have it. So the moment you don't want to have that experience, don't have it.
The strongest response here is to talk about wanting to get ice cream, but when one sibling is misbehaving, you change your mind and just go home without explanation. When they ask if you are getting ice cream you simply say "I don't want it any more, your brother was rude and not fun to be around so I'm just going to go home." This brings in the bigger tribal programming of "but I was good why do I get punished because my brother misbehaved?" Which will encourage them to regulate each other's behavior better. The key is not using threats, just concrete responses. You do this once or twice and it'll never be a problem again. It turns into "why are you mad at me, I was only getting ice cream because I wanted to do something with you, not because I promised you something as payment for you coming on errands with me."
If time out is a response to siblings hitting each other we don't want to teach them to communicate through violence. So we have to wonder where they learned to hit each other and why that's the ventilation for their frustration or anger. Them using hitting as a pathway for these emotions is where the error is. They KNOW not to hit each other pretty quickly. What they don't know is how to manage their frustration and anger, they don't know why they are angry. This is where communicating with them and asking questions can help them understand far better than any punishment could. Punishment just makes them sneakier about it. Helping them understand their own choices and giving them better outlets for their frustration is where your wisdom comes in. Maybe they hit each other and both get hurt, those are natural consequences and no further punishment is required. What is required is helping them understand themselves so they can navigate those situations better next time.
In most cases time out is more about the parent being impatient and wanting a quick resolution. In gymnastics I used to have parents who had very disobedient kids. They'd send them into gymnastics hoping they'd learn some discipline. In the early stages of coaching I was told to just kick those kids out (time out) because it was a safety hazard to have them jumping on equipment out of turn. And that solution worked for very short bursts but never cleaned up their behavior long term. They just became the kid who got kicked out all the time and they got special attention for acting out -- the coach constantly had to tell them to stand in line. So instead of constantly demanding obedience out of these kids I did two things. First, I would give them leadership and agency, they were put in charge of something that they had to pay attention to. Second, I made them sit aside when we'd play a fun game. The combination of these two things brought them back into the class. Sitting out away from doing the thing they want gave them the contrast of "if I play when I'm not supposed to, I don't get to play with everyone when it's actually what I want to do." So it wasn't done as a threat to get compliance, but as a natural consequence that later made them want to behave because the consequence of not behaving meant later they were left out of something they wanted to do. Giving them leadership made them feel significant and attended to, and usually kids who act out like this want to feel significant or worthy and since they don't feel that at home their only mechanism for that attention is to be rambunctious. These kids were 4-10yrs old btw. But I found time out just didn't work well for anyone. The more nuanced version of sit on the sidelines and watch the thing you want to be a part of was far stronger and a little more natural too.