< Previous | Contents | Next >

DISCIPLINING CHILDREN: RESEARCH WITH PARENTS IN SCOTLAND

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the findings of research with parents relating to disciplining children. It was carried out by NFO System Three Social Research on behalf of the Scottish Executive and was undertaken between March and August 2002 when consideration was being given to changing the law in relation to physical discipline. The research was designed to provide information about attitudes and behaviours amongst parents in Scotland and had two main components. The first stage consisted of a series of qualitative interviews with couples, focus groups and individuals in March and April 2002 to facilitate a detailed exploration of relevant themes. This was followed by a nationally-representative quantitative survey of 692 Scottish parents, carried out between May and August 2002 designed to provide robust quantitative data on the prevalence of particular views and behaviours. The main themes and findings emerging from the research are outlined in summary here and in more detail in the main body of the report.

Discipline in context: perceptions of parenting and family life

The qualitative interviews highlighted the need to situate the issue of discipline within the context of broader perceptions of parenting and family life. Contemporary parents clearly feel that they face significantly greater pressures than earlier generations. In this context, research participants cited the difficulty of maintaining an appropriate work-life balance, the loss of routine in family life and the pressure of their own and their children’s material expectations.

It was also widely held that there has been a significant change in the general relationship between children and adults, with the former becoming more assertive and less accepting of adult authority in general. Although many parents welcomed this shift, there was a view that it has made it more difficult to discipline children effectively.

Against this backdrop, there is evidence of increased parental anxiety about their abilities and of a greater sense of being held to account for the behaviour of their children.

That said, there was resistance from parents to the idea that their children’s behaviour is a matter for outside expertise and they are likely to deal with such issues with reference only to their spouse or partner, close friends or family.

Physical and non-physical discipline: perceptions and behaviour

Although there is a widespread view that, in general, parents are less ‘strict’ than in earlier eras and that physical discipline is both less common and less severe than it once was, current parents are more likely to see continuity than difference when comparing their parents’ and their own approaches to discipline.

Most of those interviewed felt that smacking is still widespread, if not universal, among parents in Scotland — in other words, it tends to be seen as a ‘normal’ part of parenting, rather than as an exceptional practice.

The survey data on actual parenting behaviour reinforce this view. Although the most common forms of discipline tend to be non-physical, around half of those interviewed (51%) said that they had used some form of physical chastisement within the past year, rising to eight out of ten parents of children aged between 3 and 5 (77%). A fifth of all parents of children under 5 said they had used some form of physical discipline within the past week.

There is some evidence of a class effect here, with C2DE¹ parents more likely than those in groups ABC1 to have used physical discipline (58% having done so within the past year compared with 45%). Women (54%) are also more likely than men (46%) to have done so — a finding almost certainly explained by the greater involvement of the former in childcare.

A smack on the bottom or on the hand, arm or leg is by far the most common form of physical chastisement, accounting for 96% of all incidents. In 87% of cases, the child was smacked or hit just once.

Survey data on parents’ own experience of discipline as children provide evidence of a decline in the readiness of parents to use more extreme forms of physical chastisement. The research also shows that parents who were smacked as children are themselves more likely to smack their own children. For example, 33% of those whose own parents had never used physical chastisement did so with their own child, compared with 53% of those who had experienced physical chastisement themselves.

The use of smacking: orientations, situations and justifications

Although outright opposition to the use of smacking is relatively rare, so too is a robust defence of it. Most parents have an ambivalent attitude towards it — 58% agreed with the statement ‘I don’t think it’s a good thing to do but sometimes parents need to do it’, compared with 29% with the statement ‘I don’t think there is anything wrong with using smacking to teach children right from wrong’.

There is a social class dimension here, with ‘principled’ opposition to smacking more common among ABC1 parents and support for it more common among C2DE parents.

In terms of typical ‘smacking situations’, there is a slight disjunction between the survey data and the qualitative interviews. In the latter, parents tended to refer most frequently to situations in which smacking is used to signal danger. The survey data, on the other hand, suggests that it is more commonly used as a straightforward punishment than to send a message of this kind.

The other key theme in parental talk about smacking is its construction as a tactic of ‘last resort’. In this context, it is usually a response to the persistence rather than the seriousness of children’s behaviour, and is clearly often bound up with situational factors relating to parental stress.

In terms of typical ‘smacking situations’, the survey data reveal physical chastisement to be overwhelmingly private in character, with 90% of incidents taking place within the home.

The act of smacking is often immediate and emotionally charged — rather than a deliberate and distanced application of a sanction — and often leaves parents with feelings of guilt (53% said that they felt guilty or sorry after using it on the most recent occasion. Again, this suggests that parental attitudes are more complex than might usually be supposed.

On a related note, even among those who think that smacking is sometimes justifiable, 80% felt that one should not smack children below a certain age. Around 45% of all parents think that children under three, for example, should not be smacked — though this does not necessarily mean that they think it should be illegal to do so. Interestingly, there was also significant support for the idea that children above a certain age should not be smacked.

A majority of parents who smack tend to see it as either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ effective both in stopping the behaviour at the time (74%) and in preventing similar behaviour later on (66%).

Awareness and views of possible changes in the law

The research period coincided with consideration of changes to the law on physical discipline. In particular, section 43 of the Criminal Justice Bill proposes a ban on smacking under 3s and in relation to children of all ages, banning the use of implements, blows to the head and shaking a child. At various points throughout the fieldwork period, there was media coverage of the proposed changes in the law particularly the proposals relating to under 3s.

Widespread confusion about the current legislative position on smacking was evident, with half of all parents believing that smacking is currently illegal, either for all children (15%) or for children of a particular age (37%). A third (32%) thought that it is not currently illegal to smack a child of any age.

Although there was relatively widespread awareness that the Executive was considering changes to the law (59% of parents saying they had heard something about it), the vast majority of parents claimed to know ‘not very much’ (75%) or nothing at all (6%) about the details of the proposed changes.

The research indicates that around four in ten parents (38%) favour banning smacking for the under threes, 48% support a ban on smacking of children aged under two and 52% a ban on smacking children under one. Forty-one per cent think it should remain legal to smack a child.

The main arguments advanced against banning smacking were: that it would criminalise ‘ordinary’ parents who are already doing their best in difficult circumstances; that it would be better to put the resources into provision for children and families to reduce the stress that often creates problems; that the Executive should be finding ways of identifying and tackling ‘real’ child abuse rather than diverting resources into the policing of smacking; and that the legislation would be unworkable or impractical.

Opposition to the proposed legislation appears to be underpinned by a reluctance to view smacking as potentially abusive and by a commitment to the idea that parents should be largely free to decide how to bring up their own children.

There was little evidence that parents who currently smack under 3s would greatly modify their behaviour in response to a ban.

There was strong support for the aspects of the legislation related to implements, shaking and blows to the head, since these behaviours chime much more closely with most parents’ views of what constitutes abuse — 79% agreed with the proposal to ban shaking, 79% to ban the use of implements and 84% to ban hitting around the head or face.

Conclusions

Although there is some evidence of change over time in the unacceptability of many forms of physical chastisement, the research indicates that specific use of smacking remains deeply embedded in parenting culture within Scotland. But it would be simplistic to characterise parental attitudes as overwhelmingly or straightforwardly pro-smacking. The most common attitude is one of ambivalence - recognising that smacking can have negative consequences and that there are better ways of dealing with most situations, but nevertheless concluding that sometimes children simply ‘need a smack’. This suggests that there are potential points of contact for policies and arguments that seek to promote ‘positive alternatives’ to physical discipline.

The fact that smacking typically takes place in the home and appears to be a highly charged interaction which leaves parents feeling guilty or upset raises questions about how amenable such responses are likely to be to modification through law alone. This is reinforced by the findings that many of those who smack already believe it to be illegal and that — regardless of the legal position —would continue to smack in their own homes if they thought it appropriate.

There was strong support for the aspects of the legislation related to shaking, hitting around the face or head or use of an implement. Parents are not only much less likely to use such methods, they see them much more clearly as ‘abusive’.

The research suggests a tension between heightened expectations about parenting and reducing parental control without offering positive supports. A key message suggested by the research, therefore, is that any legislation needs to be explained and presented in a way which acknowledges the difficulties and pressures faced by contemporary parents and which situates issues of discipline in the broader context of support for families and questions of work-life balance.

< Previous | Contents | Next >