CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Behavioral and Psychological StudiesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentChild Therapy and Development

The effect of time-out release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance

Bean, Arthur W., Roberts, Mark W.·1981·Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
DOI 10.1007/bf00917860
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This project evaluated the effect of time-out release contingencies on changes in child noncompliance to maternal instructions. Twenty-four clinic-referred, non-compliant, preschool children served as subjects. Each child was assessed under baseline conditions and then under one of three experimental conditions: Parent Release, Child Release, or Control. Children in the Parent Release and Child Release conditions experienced time-out contingent upon noncompliance. Temporal and behavioral time-out release contingencies were present in the Parent Release condition but not in the Child Release condition. A spanking procedure was used to inhibit premature escape from time-out for children in Parent Release group. The results indicated that both time-out groups demonstrated increased compliance ratios. However, improvement associated with the Child Release condition was considered to be clinically insignificant.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00917860

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The disparity with Gershoff (2002) arose because the present meta-analysis coded effect sizes from three experimental compliance studies differently.

    “The disparity arose because we coded the effect sizes from the three experimental studies of compliance (Bean & Roberts, 1981; Day & Roberts, 1983; Roberts & Powers, 1990) differently.”

    From Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. (2016) · cites this paper as Bean & Roberts, 1981

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bean, A. W., & Roberts, M. W.
Affiliations
Idaho State University (US)
ORCID
Roberts, Mark W.
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1981-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
95-105
ISSN
  • 0091-0627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2835
DOI
10.1007/bf00917860
OpenAlex
W2055294985
Cited by
98
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Therapy and Development
Keywords
time-out, child noncompliance, preschool children, spanking, escape behavior, parent-child interaction, clinic-referred children
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Child, Preschool, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Mother-Child Relations, Punishment, Social Isolation, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review