Understanding personal experiences of being smacked: An IPA study

with young adults

Melany Ball

North Wales Clinical Psychology Programme

University of Bangor

July 2009 Abstract

The question of whether or not to smack children has long been one of controversy

and debate.Quantitative researchinto the effects of smacking has often been

the therefore it has been conductedwithin wider remit of corporal punishment) and

difficult to ascertainoutcomes relating to smacking specifically. Furthermorethere

exists a multitude of methodological and conceptualcomplexities associatedwith the

study of smacking,particularly within quantitative paradigms.Despite these

difficulties, qualitative researchinto smacking has been limited and previous studies

of this nature have focused on establishing a generalisedreflection of experiencesand

opinions.

The presentstudy used an Interpretative PhenomenologicalApproach (IPA) to

explore young adults' experiencesof being smackedduring childhood. Analysis

identified a number of themesincluding: influences on individual experience;

precursorsto smacking; losing and regaining control; relationships with parents; and

the potential for harm. From thesethemes a number of key findings were noted.

Individual experiencesboth differed and converged,and were influenced by personal

predispositions,attitudes towards smacking and the participants' perceptionsof

smacking. Smacking was often driven by parental emotions, rather than to necessarily

benefit the child. Participants describedcommon experiencesrelating to feelings of

loss of control, and engagedin numerouscoping strategiesto managethese both experiencesand attempt to regain control. Smacking was associatedwith long-term positive and negative outcomesin relation to child-parent relationships and for development.It was concluded that parents need support to substitutesmacking

alternative disciplinary methods,which hold less potential for harm. Acknowledeements

I would like to thank Dr Isabel Hargreavesand Dr Jaci Huws for their support throughout this researchand particularly in the latter weeks, in writing up the findings.I would alsolike to thanktwo very goodfriends, Miss LeanneMaxwell and

Miss GemmaMerrick, for helping keep me sanein the final few weeks, for always beingthere, and for providinga welcomedistraction!

Above all, I want to say the biggest thank you to my fellow trainees,"the nine'. I would never have survived the ups and downs of thesethree years without you. I am eternally grateful that it was you guys who sharedthis experiencewith me; words cannot describehow much you all mean to me. Your influences have helped me develop both as a Trainee Clinical Psychologist, and, more importantly, as me. I will always hold a bit of every one of you in my heart and in my mind. THANK YOU. CONTENTS

Section Page Ethics Proposal I

Appendix A Recruitment notices 21 Appendix B Participant info sheet 1 23 Appendix C Screeningmeasures 1 26 Appendix D Consent form 1 30

Appendix E Ethical approval 1 32 Appendix F Amendment to ethics proposal 1 34 Appendix G Recruitment poster 1 36 Appendix H Amendment approval 1 38 Appendix I Further ethics amendments 1 40 Appendix J Newspaperadvertisement 1 43 Appendix K Revised recruitment notice 1 45 Appendix L Amendment approval 1 47

Process/personal 21 issuesarsing from the research

Literature Review 31 References 3 22 Appendix A Submissionguidelines for Child 3 30 Development

Research Paper 41 Abstract 42 introduction 43 Reflexivity 45 Method 4 6 Findings 4 10 Discussion 4 28 References 4 33 Tables 4 36

Appendix A Adapted CECA-Q and additional 4 38 questions Appendix B Interview Schedule 4 42

Appendix C Submissionguidelines for Qualitative 4 45 Researchin Psychology

Contributions to 5 Theory & Clinical Practice References 56

Word Counts 6 SECTION

ETHICS 3 rd party copyright material excluded from digitised thesis.

Please refer to the original text to see this material. SECTION 2:

PERSONAL AND PROCESS ISSUES ARISING FROM RESEARCH SECIION 2

Process and personal issues arsing from the conduct of the research

During thejourney of this researchthere were numerousobstacles to overcome,both in terms of practicalities and my own personal struggleswith managing multiple demands.

As regardspractical issues, the mostprominent, which causedmuch frustrationand delay,was a lack of clarity regardingexpectations of the certainaspects of the research,notably the literaturereview. I wrote the original review in accordancewith my interpretationof the ClmiicalPsychology manual guidelines, though months later, it wassuggested by staff that the review be written differently to how I had understood.This led to muchpersonal confusion and stress, and multiple revisionsof the document,which, in turn significantlydelayed my original timetable.

Nevertheless,this helpedme learnto be flexible both in termsof my academicwork andin termsof my organisation.

Therewere also some difficulties with recruitmenýwhich requiredtwo ethics amendmentsin orderto try differentmethods. This delayedrecruitment until

Novemberand due to studentsreturning home for Christmasin Decemberand having examsin January,the window of opportunityto engagethem in screeningsand subsequentinterviews was more limited thanplanned. Again this aspectof the researchwas delayed in relationto the initial timetablebut requiredthat I drewupon skills of flexibility andlearning to work with circumstancesout of my control. SECTION 2

As a Trainee Clinical Psychologist, in conducting the interviews, there was always a

'pull' betweenbuilding rapport with clients without veering into a therapeuticmode of working. It was often difficult to maintain the balancebetween directing the interview whilst maintaining participant engagement.Nevertheless, all participants reported that they enjoyed participating in the interviews and much rich data was harvested.Furthermore, upon transcribing the data it was frustrating to sometimes listen to opportunities that I had missed to ask pertinent questionsor explore certain topics further. Although I acceptedthat this could not be rectified, I hope that it will aid me to perhapslisten more carefully to participants, should I conduct ftirther research,or more pertinently, listen more attentively to clients, in working therapeutically.

AlthoughI hadsome previous experience of working with qualitativemethods, thoughnot IPA, my prior researchprojects and training had focusedon quantitative paradigms.It was thereforesometimes difficult to adi ust focusto producea research studyof qualitativedesign. For example,I initially foundmyself writing the resultsin a descriptivemanner, presenting quotes accompanied with a brief verbaldescription. it was difficult to embracethe ideathat I could presentmy interpretationsof the narrativesand these would be accepted.Nevertheless, with supportfrom my supervisorsI managedto overcomethis and learnhow to developand write a qualitativeresearch paper.

Overall,this researchhas been one of the most difficult tasksI haveever undertaken it hasbeen at times,exhausting, stressful and overwhelming. It haspushed me beyond I be what I thought would capableof in termsof working understress and working SECTION 2 unsociablehours! Furthermore it has realty stretchedmy capabilities of multi-tasking, both at a practicaland mental level. Yet I believethese challenges have proved invaluablein both my personaland professional development and hope they standme in goodstead for my future career.In addition,even in the final weeks,I still felt passionfor the project,and to me that was more importantthan anything. I remained keento tell the storiesthat evolvedfrom my researchfindings, the stories,which my participantskindly sharedwith me, andwhich I hopecan make some small difference. SECTION 3:

LITERATURE REVIEW SECTION 3

Corporal Punishment and Smacking: A critical review of guantitative research and

discussion of theoretical issues

Abstract

The presentreview paper discussessmacking within the context of corporal punishment.

Given that the literaturemost often citesthe effectsand debatesabout smacking within this wider remit, it was thought the most appropriate method of addressingall relevant issues.A brief background is presented,followed by the current political and legislative context of corporal punishment and smacking. A discussionensues as regards the methodological and conceptualdifficulties involved in the study of this topic area,before relevant empirical evidenceis reviewed. Included will be an outline of a psychological model of corporal punishmentproposed by Gershoff (2002a). Finally, additional psychological theories pertinent to child development and learning will be considered.

introduction

The terms "corporal punishment" and "physical punishment" encompass a range of disciplinary strategies, which include smacking, but can also include methods such as

belt, shaking, pinching, hitting with a washing a child's mouth with soap, etc (Gershoff,

2002a). Corporal punishment has been defined as:

"the use ofphysicalforce with the intention ofcausing a child to experiencepain but not injuryfor thepurposes ofcorrection or control of the child's behaviour"

(Straus,1994) SECTION 3

In the presentreview it will be presumedthat the label of 'corporal punishment' will refer to the abovedefinition unless otherwise stated.

The term "smacking"is commonlyused in the UK and is synonymouswith the term

66spanking",which is the label favouredin the USA (Redman& Taylor, 2006).In additionto theseexpressions, various studies have reported the useof alternativeterms such as, "hitting",

64slapping"or "tapping" (e.g. Willow & Hyder, 1998;MacMillan et al. 1999).In the present review the term smackingwill be employedand will beendefined as:

"hitting a child with an openhand on the buttocksor extremitieswith the intent to discipline without leaving a bruise or causingphysical harm ".

(Baurnrind, Larzerele & Cowan, 2002)

Whenreferring to otherstudies, however, the termsused will be thoseas cited by the author(s).

Backeround

Most people would agree that becoming a parent presentsone of the most significant life changesand can be immensely rewarding. Nevertheless,it can also be an extremely difficult task and parentsmay sometimesfeel overwhelmed by the changesand demandsexerted by the parenting role (Muslow et al. 2002). Such experiencesare important to note, as parentsare integral to a child's development and parenting dysfunction can lead to a plethora of difficulties for the child, family and wider society (de Graaf et al. 2008). SECTION 3

A key aspectof the parenting role is child behaviour management,the goals of which are

likely to include both immediate compliance, in order to prevent unwantedbehaviours and

keep the child safe, and the promotion of longer-term socialisation. It would be expectedthat

behaviour managementstrategies include a combination of both punishment and

reinforcementstrategies, which arelikely to be wide rangingacross individuals and cultures.

They may be non-physical, such as the use of time out, or physical, such as smacking.

Smacking falls within the remit of corporal punishment but is generally consideredto be at

the milder end of the continuum (Gershoff, 2002a). As a disciplinary technique, its use is

widespread,yet remains controversial. In a study funded by the Department of Health, the use

of smacking was reported by over 90% of British parents(Nobes & Smith, 1997).The

fmdingsalso revealed that aroundhalf of childrenaged between one and four were smacked

at leastonce a week. Similarly, in the USA, 74% of parentswith childrenunder the ageof 17

use smacking as a disciplinary method (Gallup, 1995), and this figure rises to 94% in parents

of childrenunder 4 (Straus& Stewart,1999).

In the UK, there is generalpublic support for individual parental choice to use smacking

(Department of Health, 2000). Nevertheless,figures suggesta that the use of smacking is

falling out of favour, with a recent survey reporting that 62% of adults support smacking as a

(Yankelvich, in regular disciplinary method 2000). This is in contrast to 94% of people the

1960s(Straus & Mather, 1996).

Political and legislative context

have forms A number of countries now outlawed all of corporal punishmentof children

including, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Romania, Latvia, Hungary, Norway SECTION 3 and Sweden(Children are Unbeatable Alliance, 2000).Sweden was the first countryto implementthis ban,in 1979and has since benefited in relationto numerouschild protection indicators(Durrant, 1999). For example,public supportfor corporalpunishment has decreased,there have been low numbersof child deathsresulting from physicalabuse, and the peoplein Swedenare now morelikely to report assaultsagainst children (Durrant, 1999).

In the UK, Scotlandrecently proposed a ban on smackingchildren under the ageof 3, but this was later diluted to a ban on hitting a child with an object,hitting a child to the headand/or shakinga child (ScottishGovernment, 2003). England and Wales refuted even this ban and merelyamended the existingban of "reasonablechastisement" to statethat a child canlegally receivea mild smackthat doesnot leavebruising, grazing or othervisible physicalevidence

(Houseof Commons,2004). In October2007 the WelshAssembly announced that it had appointedlegal advisorsto reconsiderthe proposedban on smackingin Wales(Turner, 2007).

Nevertheless,the UK Governmentadvised that the WelshAssembly did not hold powersto implementsuch a ban (Houseof Commons,2008). More recently,N[Ps were due to revisit the issuein the Houseof Commons,but dueto time constraintsthe relevantlegislation was not debated(House of Commons,2008).

Nevertheless,it could be arguedthat theselaws do not extendfar enoughin theprotection of children.For example,parents may be morelikely to inflict physicalpunishment on areas unlikely to be seen,such as the child's buttocks.Here, it is possiblethat physicalevidence of harmmay be left on the child with little likelihood of discovery. SECTION 3

Methodoloeical and Concei)tual Issues

Before considering the empirical data relating to corporal punishment and smacking, it is first

importantto considerthe plethoraof methodologicaland conceptual difficulties which plague

this topic area(Kazdin & Benjet, 2003).

As hasbeen previously noted, there exist varieddefinitions of smackingand corporal punishment.This presentsdifficulties both in termsof conceptionand study design.

Professionalsand researchers working in child developmentspheres tend to view corporal punishmentas being on a continuumwith physicalabuse, with the latterresulting when corporalpunishment is appliedtoo severelyor too frequently(Vasta, 1982). There is the risk that any form of physicalpunishment, including smacking,can leaveevidence of harm,and could be construedas physical abuse (Wolfe, 1999).It is thereforedifficult to establishwhen

exactly smacking 'becomes' abusive. Consequentially, many researchpapers have studied the

effects of behavioursthat could be consideredphysically abusive, within the definition of corporal punishment.In addition, it is possible that some forms of corporal punishment may inflict psychological abuse.Indeed, it is problematic to disentanglethe effects of smacking from other potentially harmfid parenting practices. For example, in a review of the literature,

Benjet and Kazdin (2003) reported that parents who more often spank their children also play with them less,hug them less and are less likely to read to them. In addition, those parentsare levels also more likely to report higher of stress,higher rates of mental illness or substance abuse,and more discordantmartial relations.

Therefore,conclusions of the effectsof smacking,as definedin the introduction(Baumrind,

Larzerele& Cowan2002), are precluded. Nevertheless, their definition too holdssome For difficulties in interpretation. example,what is consideredto be an extremity;a foot or a SECTION 3 hand, or the whole arm or leg? In addition, what is consideredphysical harm; it could be argued that a mild tap on a child's hand is different to numerousrepeated hard smackson the buttocks. The latter may leave red marks that last for an hour but do not bruise, is this defined as physical harm? Furthermore some children bruise more easily than others.New legislation couldbe criticisedfor affordingdifferent childrendiffering levelsof protection,dependent on the sensitivity of their skin. It is also of note that the definition makes no referenceto emotionalharm. Therefore, is it to be concludedthat smackingis acceptableso long as it does not harm a child physically, irrespective of whether a child is harmed psychologically?

Many studiesof corporal punishment and smacking are correlational in nature. This was noted by Gershoff (2002a) in a comprehensivemeta-analytic review of the literature.

Therefore, inferencesof causality in such studies are excluded. Additionally, many relied on self-reported retrospectiveaccounts from parents or their children (usually adult or adolescent children) as to the frequency and context of smacking, which are subject to bias (Gershoff,

2002). Such methodological issuesarise as it would clearly be unethical to conduct randomised controlled trials, investigating smacking versus other forms of discipline.

Nevertheless,the majority of researchconcurs that a need exists for carefully conducted longitudinal studies in order to provide clearer answersas to the effects of smacking (e.g.

Gershoff, 2002; Kazdin & Berjet, 2003).

Corvoral punishment

Previousdebates in this domaincan be tracedback for decades(Gershoff, 2002a). Larzelere

(1996)noted that whilst mostprofessionals would opposeabusive corporal punishment, the implementationof non-abusivecorporal punishment remains contentious. In a comprehensive Kazdin Benjet(2003) reviewof the literature, and outlinedthree predominant positions

6 SECTION 3 relatedto corporalpunishment, inclusive of smacking.The first beingthat suchpunishment is beneficial,as it elicitsdesirable consequences in termsof a child's behaviourand should thereforeform part of responsibleparenting. The secondthat corporalpunishment is associatedwith negativeoutcomes for the child, both in the shortand long term,and the third that the effectsmay be positiveor negativedependent on context.As yet, researchhas failed to resolvethis debate.Below, someof the more prominentworks, which havecontributed to argumentsfor andagainst corporal punishment and smacking, are discussed.

Given that therehave been some extensive reviews of the effectsof corporalpunishment, thesereviews have been discussed, as opposed to individual studies,in orderto providean overviewof therelevant research within the word limits of this work.

Results ofmeta-analyses

Larzelere (1996) reported a review of empirical studiesthat had investigated "non-abusive or customaryphysical punishments" and associatedchild outcomes.Of the 35 studies that met inclusion criteria, 9 reported overall beneficial outcomes, 12 found largely negative outcomes whilst the results of the remaining 14 were neutral, that is the results did not achieve statistical significance. Larzelere (1996) reported that those studieswith strongerinternal validity, that is, the clinical treatment studiesand studies which employed sequentialanalysis, found predominantly beneficial outcomes.Nevertheless, how an outcome was defined as either describing positive or negative was unclear. In his methods Larzelere provided an example of being improved a positive outcome as compliance and a negative one as being lower self- delinquency. esteemor increased Although some specific outcomeswere listed, any detailed 17 information regarding the retrospective studies he reviewed was excluded. Furthermore, for the majority of the studies which the outcomeswere detailed, focusedon short-term

17 SECTION 3 compliance as a positive outcome. One could argue whether short-term compliance is a really a 'positiveoutcome' as it would seemmore beneficial to achievelonger-term behavioural. compliance.Moreover, it is possiblethat other disciplinarymethods such as praising desirable behaviours;would derivesimilar compliancelevels. It haslong beenknown that undesirable behaviourscan be reducedthrough the positivereinforcement of alternativebehaviours

(Skinner,1938). Few of the studiesconsidered any potentialsocial or psychologicalimpact on the child. Overall,of the reviewedstudies summarised, only two consideredsome psychologicalfactors. It wasreported that thesetwo studiesrevealed no associationsbetween smackingand psychological well-being or self-esteem(Larzelere, 1996), though how these conceptswere measured was not reported.

In addition,from the informationprovided in the review,it appearedthat individualstudies only consideredlimited outcomes,such as child compliance,rather than multiple outcomes.

Therefore,it seemsthat evenif that studyreported a positiveoutcome such as compliance, it failed to measurewhether there were additional negative outcomes over the longerterm, such as increasedaggression.

A finther issuefrom this review wasthe definition of "non-abusiveor customary"not being clearly defined.Rather, the studystated that it excludedbroadly defined punitive methods and measuresof physicalpunishment dominated by severityor non-spankingtactics. Indeed, the term "customary",as defined by the Oxford EnglishDictionary (2005), means "in accordancewith custom;usual". Therefore,such a term may includepunishments considered to be abusive,as differentcultures would considerdifferent punishmentsto be 'usual'. This highlightsthe aforementionedconceptual difficulties, which arisein the definition of terms. later Furthermore,the article statedthat only II of the 35 studiesexcluded abusive methods

0 SECTION 3

from their measuresof physical punishment. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether outcomes

were associatedwith abusive or non-abusive physical punishment. It was noted that of those

II studiesthat employed such abuseexclusions, only one reported detrimental consequences.

A fin-ther,comprehensive review of the effectsof corporalpunishment was undertaken by

Gershoff(2002a). This consistedof a meta-analysisof 88 studiesfrom 1938up to the year

2000.Studies were initially selectedon the basisof key words; "corporalpunishment, physicalpunishment and spank". This generatedover 300 papers,though approximately half

were immediatelyexcluded, as they did not includedata. Of thoseworks that reporteddata, to

be includedin the meta-analysescorporal punishment was definedas "behavioursthat do not

result in significantphysical injury e.g. spank,slap". In orderto eliminateabusive measures

the studyexcluded "behaviours that risk injury (e.g. punching,kicking, burning) ". Two

codersagreed as to which studiesto include/excludeon the basisof thesecriteria. The effects

of 'non-abusive'corporal punishment were analysedon the basisof numerousconstructs,

which werechosen on the basisof previousevidence to suggestthat they may be associated

with corporalpunishment. It was endeavouredto includeboth negativeand positive outcomes

andconsidered effects across the life span,that is, in both childhoodand adulthood (Gershoff,

2002a).

Resultssuggested that corporalpunishment was associated with a rangeof negative experiencesand behaviours. In childhood,corporal punishment was foundto be associated with decreasedmoral internalisation,increased aggression, increased delinquent and anti- socialbehaviour, decreased relationship quality betweenparent and child, decreasedmental healthand an increasedrisk of becominga victim of physicalabuse (Gershoff, 2002a). As regardslonger-term effects, in adulthoodcorporal punishment was associatedwith increased SECTION 3 aggression,increased criminal and anti-social behaviour, decreasedmental health and increasedlikelihood of person abusing their own child or spouse(Gershoff, 2002a). The only positive outcome of corporal punishment was that it was, overall, associatedwith immediate compliance in children. Nevertheless,this finding was not consistent,as at an individual level, two of the five studiesconsidering immediate compliance did not find any associations.The associationsin the otherstudies though, were highly consistent(Gershoff, 2002a).

However, although Gershoff (2002) attemptedto eliminate studiesthat included physical abuse,a number of studiesremained in the analysis, which included punishmentsthat could be considered,or have the potential to be, abusive, such as hitting a child with an object and pinching a child. Such an issue reiterateswhat was previously noted as regarding the methodological difficulties inherent within this topic area.

Furthermore, as Gershoff (2002a) noted, meta-analysisis a correlational procedureand therefore it is not possible to establish causality. It is impossible to ascertainwhether corporal punishment affected outcomesin the child or if it was the child's behaviour that drove the associations.For example, it has been reported that children describedas fussy or irritable by their parentswere at increasedrisk of being spankedthan children describedas happy or cheerful (Day, Peterson& McCracken, 1998). In contrast, Crockenberg(1987) found that child irritability did not predict mothers' use of corporal punishment.Nevertheless, in a later paper Gershoff (2002b) arguedthe likelihood that the associationsevident in the data are driven by parents. She exerted that parentsalways have a choice in their responsesto their

direction child's behaviour and noted that there would not likely be an argument regarding the illustrated of effect if results had that children who obey their parents are more likely to elicit corporal punishment. On the other hand, although parentshave a choice, it is likely that some

10 SECTION 3

children are more difficult to parent and are therefore at increasedrisk of receiving corporal

punishment.

Proposed Model of C01poral Punishment

In an attempt to clarify some of thesecomplexities, Gershoff (2002a) proposeda "process-

context" model, which outlined pathways of how and why parental corporal punishment

might causeparticular consequencesfor the child. This model was initially describedwithin

her review paper, but following further suggestion(see Holden, 2002) was later amended

(Gershoff 2002b). The revised version is discussedhere.

The model hypothesisesthat corporal punishment affects children by shapingtheir emotional

and cognitive processes.It purports that after an incident of corporal punishment, three stages

of processingare likely to occur. The first being the child's immediate physiological, emotional and sensoryreaction followed by a secondarycognitive appraisal.Finally, it was argued that longer term cognitive processingoccurs. It is proposedthat theseprocesses are influenced by multiple variables, such as observational learning, the child's attributions, and social information processing.Once such processeshave been shaped,it is suggestedthat children are predisposedto develop particular bchaviours or engagein particular experiences. it is proposedthat thesepathways occur within the context of individual characteristicsof the parent and child, the characteristicsof the child's behaviour, interactions between the parent and child and the socio-cultural context. The nature of corporal punishmentmust also be considered;for example, the frequency and severity of the punishment,whether it is impulsive or planned, and whether it occurs alongside other disciplinary methods.

11 SECTION 3

Thus, if Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1973) is applied to this model, it could be hypothesisedthat when a child is frequently exposedto being smackedwithout co-occurring disciplinary methods,they may learn through observation and social information processing, that smacking can be used as a tool to control behaviours in others and the child may in turn be predisposedto display aggressivebehaviours. Alternatively, a child with a fearful temperamentmay be more likely to experiencefear when physically punished and therefore comply with the parent. However, in accordancewith classical conditioning principles

(Pavlov, 1927), this compliance is likely to be attributed to the external control of the corporal punishment and therefore the child might fail to internalise the disciplinary lessonunderlying the punishment (Gershoff, 2002b). It should be noted that Gershoff s model was developedon the basis of researchwith corporal punishment, which included smacking but also additional physicalpunishments. No suchmodel has been proposed for smackingalone. Nevertheless, it is likely that suchprocesses, as postulated in Gershoffs modelcould alsobe appliedto smacking.Later in this review the effectsof smackinghave been considered in relationto relevantpsychological theory.

Smacking

In order to study the empirical evidencerelating to smacking alone, a searchwas conducted database on the Web of Science,a that searchesa multitude ofjournals within the sphereof health and behavioural sciences.Two searcheswere conducted,the first looked for any

"smacking" in "spanking" in articles with the word the title, and the secondwith the word the title, as 'spanking'is a morepredominant term in the USA. All articlesfrom theyear 1990 data onwardswere scoured. Results produced very few articlesthat presentedempirical hasbeen relatingto smackingalone, and as noted,none proposed a psychologicalmodel of the effectsof smacking.Rather, the majority of papersexamined the effectsof smacking

11) SECTION 3 within the context of corporal punishment, and therefore other physical disciplinary methods were included in analysis. Furthermore, there were an exhaustivenumber of articles outlining the academicdebate of the pros and consof smackingas a disciplinarytechnique The lack of papersspecific to smackingis likely to be a consequenceof the previouslydiscussed methodologicaland conceptual complexities inherent within this topic domain.Nevertheless, thosestudies which could be accessed,and which presentedempirical data have been evaluated.

Effectsin childhood

Slade& Wissow(2004) collected data regarding the frequencyof spankingfor an ethnically diversesample of nearly2000 children at the ageof two. With baselinespanking frequency and othercharacteristics held constant,it wasreported that a higherfrequency of spanking beforethe ageof two wasassociated with increasedbehavioural. problems upon entry to school.Such a trendonly occurredthough in White non-Hispanicchildren. In Hispanicand

Black childrenthis associationwas not significant.Such results suggest that furtherresearch is wan-antedas regards to the cultural contextof the effectsof smacking.Nevertheless, it indicatesthat smackingmay exertnegative effects on child behaviour,this is despitethe fact that onemight expectthat parentsemploy smacking as an aid to elicit desirablebehaviour.

Culturaldifferences were alsoreported in a studyby Gunnoeand Mariner (1997). They gathereddata at two time points from 1112families with childrenaged 4 to II yearsat baseline.Parents were surveyed as to the occurrenceand frequencyof spankingtheir child in the weekprior to interview.It shouldbe notedthat the definition of spankingwas not clarified for parentsand was therefore subject to individual interpretation.Outcome measures included child reportsof their involvementin fighting in schoolover the previousyear and parent SECTION 3

reportsof the child's antisocialbehaviour, examined on the basisof a subscaleof the

BehaviourProblems Index. Gunnoeand Mariner attemptedto controlfor parentalage,

parentalgender, household income, how often parentspraised and/or yelled at their children,

andthe numberof rulesparents held for their children.Reported results indicated that higher

baselinespanking frequency was associatedwith increasedfighting in white childrenaged 8

to II yearsbut decreasedfighting in black childrenand in childrenaged 4 to 7 years.

Nevertheless,higher rates of spankingat time onewere associated with increasedantisocial

behaviourat time two acrossages and races.It wasnot definedthough whether the term

'fighting' referredonly to physicalfights, or alsoincluded verbal fights, which onemight

expectto be morecommon amongst children. Furthermore, it couldbe arguedthat children

may withhold from researchersinformation about their involvementin fighting. Thereforethe

frequencyof fighting may be underestimated.On the otherhand though, if a child provided

an underestimationof their fighting at time one,it would be expectedthat theyrepeat this at

time two, thereforethe overallresults would reflect the sameconcept. The issueremains

thoughthat whilst anti-socialbehaviour increased with higherspanking frequency, fighting

decreasedin somegroups. The reasonsfor this areunclear and the authorsproposed that the

effectsof spankingvary acrossdimensions. Though this explanationfails to provideus with any ftirther informationor hypotheses.One possible explanation is that the information relatedto antisocialbehaviour included factors such as disobedience and whether the child tells lies. Suchitems are a wider reflection of the child's overallbehaviour, which maybe more likely to be affectedby spanking.

Although it mightbe expectedthat smackingis usedin a controlledmanner in orderto behaviour,in modify children's practice,it hasbeen found that parents'frustration or infant's behaviour aggravationwith their is the mostpowerful predictor of spanking,even

14 SECTION 3 after controlling for other variables (Wissow, 2002). More recently, Orme and Cain (2008) interviewed 246 mothers and reported that the mother being a young age, and perceiving their child as "difficult", were two principal predictors for the use of spanking. It should be noted though that both thesestudies pertained to infants (below the age of three) rather than children. Therefore the results cannot be generalisedto older child populations. In addition, the Orme and Cain study only questionedmothers about their use of spanking within the prior week. Therefore, mothers who spankedtheir children less frequently, but still regularly, were excluded from analysis.Furthermore, the mothers in the samplewere not provided with a definition of spanking and thus interpretations may have varied between participants.

Long--termconsequences

The researchdescribed so far has focused on the effects of smacking on children.

Furthermore, it has tended to only consider child behavioursas outcomes.Other research though has indicated that smacking may causea wider range of consequencesacross the life span. For example,MacMillan et al. (1999) surveyeda large sample of Canadianparticipants, who had been screenedto eliminate any previous sexualor physical abuse.Results indicated that being spankedsometimes or often during childhood was significantly more likely to be associatedwith anxiety disorders and one or more extemalising problems, such as alcohol dependence,in adulthood. Being spankedas a child was also associatedwith major depressionduring adult years, though this associationwas below the level of significance.

Furthermore, it was discoveredthat these associationsdisplayed a linear trend, that is, the

likely more often a child was spanked,the more it was they would be experiencing difficulties psychological as an adult. Nevertheless,it should be noted that participantsself- frequently "slapped" reported how they were or "spanked". Therefore, not only was the study reliant on retrospectiveself-report measures,it is unclear how participants interpretedthe

Ic SECTION 3 meaningsof spanking and slapping. As the researchersdid not define the terms some participants may have been slappedacross the face during childhood, a practice that may be consideredphysically or psychologically abusive. Furthermore, as the study was correlational, directions of causality could not be established. Additionally it failed to screenfor emotional abuse,therefore other variables such as excessivecriticism or a lack of parentalwarmth may haveinfluenced the associations.

Therole of attachmentand parentingsUles

Slade and Wissow (2004) cited that spanking an infant can risk their senseof security and their attachmentto caregivers.Similarly, Gershoffs model hypothesisesthat corporal punishment can affect the quality of the parent-child relationship. An infant's attachmentto their primary caregiver plays a key role in their social development(Gleitman, Fridlund &

Reisberg, 1999). Attachments can vary in their quality and can affect our later interpersonal styles, that is, how we perceive and respond to others and our environment (Bowlby, 1982).

Researchhas establishedfour attachmentstyles; secure,anxious-ambivalent, avoidant and disorganised(Ainsworth et al. 1978; Carlson, 1998). Children who are securely attachedto their caregiver experiencethat caregiver as being physically and emotionally available to them and subsequentlytend to have better developmentaloutcomes. in contrast children who form any of the other insecureattachments are at greaterrisk for later behavioural and emotional difficulties, particularly children with a disorganisedattachment (Zilberstein,

2006). Given the importance of early childhood attachment,the effects of smacking on such bonds would benefit from further research.

In addition to early attachment,parenting styles also play a role in child development. (1971,199 Researchby Baumrind 1) delineatedthree primary parental styles; permissive;

16 SECTION 3

authoritarianand authoritative. Parents who useauthoritarian methods to reartheir children

tendto be controllingand demand unquestioning obedience, therefore prohibiting the child

from expressingtheir opinions(Rudy & Grusec,2006). Children of suchparents tend to be

morewithdrawn, more distrustful, more defiant and lack independence(Baumrind 1971). In

contrast,permissive parents set few rulesfor their childrenand infrequently use punishment,

however,they were also described as displaying warmth towards their children(Baumrind,

1971).Subsequently, these children are more likely to lack independence,self-control and

socialresponsibility (Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg,1999). The optimalparental style is the

authoritativepattern, in which parentsplace demands on their childrenand enforcerules but

combinethis with warmthand allow the child to communicatetheir pointsof view. These

childrenthen tend to grow up to be independent,autonomous and well adjusted(Baumrind,

1971).

Alternative parenting styles were proposedby Parker, Tupling and Brown (1979), on the basis

of their ParentalBonding Instrument. This is a measureof a child's view of parentsduring the

first 16 years of age, and has two primary dimensions;care (warmth and understanding)and

control (over-protectivenessand intrusiveness).Parental styles were then proposedbased on

the interactionsbetween care and control. High care with high control was termed

&affectionateconstraint', high care/low control was thought to be "optimal parenting', low

care/high control was labelled 'affectionless control' and 'neglectful parenting' consistedof

low care with low control (Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979). Children who are exposedto low care and/or high control parenting have been found to be more likely to have major depression(Rodgers, 1996) and/or high anxiety levels in adulthood (Shams& Williams,

1995). The laffectionless control' pattern has the highest associationswith psychological distress(Chambers, Power & Durham, 2004).

17 SECTION 3

Given the influence of parenting styles on child development,it might be expectedthat they play a role in mediating the effects of corporal punishment and smacking. For example,if

children are smackedin the absenceof a warm, positive parental relationship, as perhaps would occur within 'affectionless control' parenting, then it could be hypothesisedthat

children would be at greater risk of adverseeffects. On the other hand, the 'optimal parent', or

authoritative parenting style may buffer against any negative effects. Some researchhas

attemptedto addressthese issues. A large cross-cultural American study of over 1800

children aged6 to 14, discovered that when children were spankedfrequently, they

experiencedan increasedrisk of developing depressivesymptoms, after controlling for other variables including parental style (Christie-Mizell, Pryor and Grossman,2008). Therefore, positive emotional support from parentsfailed to alleviate the negative effects of spanking.

Nevertheless,this study did not clearly define their term "spanking". In addition, as the study

only inquired about spanking frequency in the week prior, there were no data obtainedas regards the effects of regular, but less frequent spanking.Furthermore, the child and

adolescentdepressive symptoms were establishedthrough maternal self-report. There would

seem a high probability that such reports were subject to bias. A study of corporal punishment

establishedsimilar results. It was reported that positive parental support significantly reduced the negative impact of corporal punishmentwhen such punishment was delivered between three and eleventimes per annum. Nevertheless,it had no effect when the children experiencedcorporal punishment more than once per month (Turner and Finkelhor 1996).

Though it is unclear exactly which punishmentsare included within the remit of corporal punishment.

18 SECTION 3

In conclusion, thesestudies indicate that frequent smacking can negatively impact upon the

child irrespective of the parent-child relationship. Nevertheless,the effects of less frequent

smacking may be mediatedby a positive parental style.

Further Relevant Psvchological Theorv

Given the scarcity of empirical evidenceregarding the effects of smacking combined with its

commonusage, it may be beneficialto considersmacking within the contextof some

pertinent psychological theory.

The experimental analysis of behaviour is concernedwith ascertainingthe functions of

relationships between environmental factors and behaviours(Skinner, 1938). The practical

application of behaviourism,operates to elucidate why a particular behaviour is evoked or

how an individual can be brought to engagein, or refrain from, a specific behaviour (Baer,

Wolf & Risley, 1968). Given that the goal of discipline is likely to be to encouragethe child

to comply with a particular behaviour, whilst eliminating unwanted behaviours (Gershoff,

2002), it may be useful to consider the effects of smacking from a behavioural perspective.

Accordingto operantconditioning theory, children are socialised by both pain andpleasure.

That is, they will increasebehaviours that bring themgratification, whilst reducing behaviours;which resultin punishment(Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg,1999). If the child's behaviourthough brings them such gratification that it outweighsany effectsof the punishment,then the punishmentwill be ineffectivein shapingbehaviour. For example,if a child stealssome sweets and receives a smackfor doing so, the child maydetermine that the rewardof the sweetsoutweighs the shortlived pain of a smackand repeat the behaviourin future.

19 SECTION 3

Similarly, the theory of classical conditioning pertains that learning occurs when an associationis formed between an event and a particular behaviour (Pavlov, 1927).Therefore, it would be expectedthat a child would learnto associate'naughty' behaviourwith the pain of a smackand therefore will refrain from the behaviourin orderto avoidbeing smacked and feelingthat pain. On the otherhand though, behavioural theory also hypothcsises the notion of 'habituation'.Thus if a stimulusbecomes familiar it is lesslikely to elicit a responseand therefore learning is suspendedas we are able to ignore the familiar (Gleitman, Fridlund &

Reisberg, 1999). Therefore, if a child is smackedfrequently the intended disciplinary effects of that smackmay be lost.

Furthermore,the pain of a smackmay provokeside effects additional to behavioural compliance. Pain typically elicits an escaperesponse (Azrin et al., 1965) so in order to avoid the pain of a smack children may too avoid their caregivers,the proponentsof that smack.In turn, this could negatively impact upon the caregiver-child relationship.

Social Learning Theory proposesthat children learn through imitating others (Bandura,

1973). Indeed, many cultures, including Western culture, encouragessuch imitation as a way of learning, for example encouragingchildren to play with toys resembling householdobjects.

In relation to smacking though, children may team that smacking is an appropriateway to try and elicit certain behaviours in others and therefore demonstrateincreased aggression with peers.Although it wasnot possibleto ascertainfrom the literaturewhether smacking alone doeseduce such consequences, numerous reviews of corporalpunishment have reported that it canlead to increasedaggression levels in children(e. g. Patterson,1982; Gershoff, 2002a).

20 SECTION 3

A key element of child developmentis moral internalisation, which involves a child adapting values and attitudes in order to develop socially acceptablebehaviour (Grusec & Goodnow,

1994). A number of studieshave demonstratedthat rules are less effectively internalisedby children when parentsrely predominantly on power. Children of parentswho asserttheir power in this way are more likely to cheat for a prize, less likely to confessto wrongdoings and less likely to feel guilt about misdeeds(Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, 1999).Therefore, smacking a child may detract from, rather than promote, moral internalisation.

In conclusion,although in accordancewith behaviouralprinciples smacking could be an effective form of behaviour management,other theory suggeststhat not only can it be ineffectiveunder certain circumstances, but that it can alsoinitiate detrimentalconsequences.

Giventhat other,likely lessharmful, disciplinary methods are available; one could argue that the utilisationof thesestrategies would be preferableto smacking.

Summarv

Although a wealth of researchexists in relation to corporal punishment,less empirical data

has failed are available to establishthe effects of smacking alone. Researchto present to it is concur as regardsthe effects of either corporal punishment or smacking,though generally form acceptedthat smacking is a mild of corporal punishment and therefore more socially acceptable.Nevertheless, the evidenceavailable, and relevant psychological theory, would impact suggestthat there is a strong possibility that smacking children can negatively on their development,their behaviours and their relationships with others. With this in mind,

better for smacking may be substituted an alternative disciplinary strategy.

21 SECTION 3

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. and Wall, S. (1978) Patterns ofattachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. New York: Basic Books

Azrin, N. H., Hake,D. F., Holz, W. C. andHutchinson, R. R. (1965)Elicitation of aggression by a physical blow. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior 8,55-57

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M. and Risley, T. R. (1968) Some Current Dimensions of Applied

Behavioural,Analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavioural Analysis 1,91-97.

Bandura, A. (I 973)Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall

Baurnrind, D. (197 1) Current patterns of parental authority. DevelopmentalPsychology

Monograph 4 (1, part 2) 1-103

Baumrind, D. (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescentcompetence and substanceuse. Journal ofEarly, 4dolescence11,56-95

Baumrind,D., Larzerele,R. E. andCowan, P. A. (2002)Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful?Comment on Gershoff(2002) Psychological Bulletin 128,580-589

Benjet,C. andKazdin, A. E. (2003)Spanking children: The controversies,findings and new directions. Clinical PsycholoýTReview 23,197-224

22 SECTION 3

Bowlby, J. (1982) Attachment and Loss, voL 1: Attachment, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books

Carlson, E. A. (1998) A prospective longitudinal study of attachmentdisorganization/ disorientation. Child Development 69,1107-1128

Chambers,J. A., Power, K. G. and Durham, R. C. (2004) Parental Styles and Long-Term

Outcome Following Treatment for Anxiety Disorders. Clinical PsYch ology and

Psychotherapy11,187-198

Children are UnbeatableAlliance (2000) Moving on From Smacking.London: NSPCC

Christie-Mizell, C. A., Pryor, E. M. and Grossman,E. R. B. (2008) Child Depressive

Symptoms, Spanking, and Emotional Support: Differences Between African American and

EuropeanAmerican Youth. Family Relations 57,335-350.

Crockenberg,S. (1987) Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of toddlers by adolescentmothers. Child Development 58,964-975

Day, D. E., Peterson,G. W. andMcCracken, C. (1998)Predicting spanking of youngerand older childrenby mothersand fathers. Journal OfMarriageand theFamily 60,79-94

De Graaf,I., Speetjens,P., Smit, F., De Wolff, M. andTavecchio, L. Effectivenessof the

Triple P Positive Parenting Program on Parenting: A Meta-Analysis. Family Relations 57,

553-566

23 SECTION 3

Departmentof Health (2000) Protecting Children, Supporting Parents. A Consultation

Document on the Physical Punishment of Children. London: DoH

Durrant, J. (1999) Evaluating the Successof Sweden's Corporal PunishmentBan. Child

Abuse and Neglect 23(5), 435-448

Gallup Organization (1995) Disciplining children in America: A Gallup poll report.

Princeton,NJ: Author

Gershoff, E. T. (2002a) Corporal Punishmentby Parentsand AssociatedChild Behaviors and

Experiences:A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 128(4), 539-

579

Gershoff, E. T. (2002b) Corporal Punishment,Physical Abuse, and the Burden of Proof,

Reply to Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holden (2002), and Parke (2002).

Psychological Bulletin 128(4), 602-611

Gleitinan, H., Fridlund, A. J. and Reisberg, D. (1999) Psychology, 5h ed. New York: W. W.

Norton & CompanyInc

Grusec,J. E. andGoodnow, J. J. (1994)Impact of parentaldiscipline methods on the child's internalizationof values:A reconceptualizationof currentpoints of view. Development psychology 30,4-19

24 SECTION 3

Gunnoe, M. L. and Mariner, C. L. (1997) Toward a developmental-contextualmodel of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression.Archives ofPediatrics and Adolescent

Medicine151,768-775

Holden, G. W. (2002) Perspectiveson the effects of corporal punishment: Comment on

Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin 128,590-595

House of Commons (2004) Children's Bill 2004. Available at: www. publications.parliament. uk

Accessed:09/02/09

Houseof Commons(2008) House of CommonsHansard Debates, 08/10/08. Available at: www. publications.pafliament. uk

Accessed:09/02/09

House of Commons(2008) 77ieproposed draft National Assemblyfor Wales(Legislative

Competence)(Social Welfare and otherfields), 26/06/08.House of CommonsWelsh Affairs

Committee. Available at: www. 12ublications.parliament. iik

Accessed:09/02/09

Kazdin,A. E. andBenjet, C. (2003)Spanking Children: Evidence and Issues. Current

Directionsin PsychologicalScience 12(3), 99-103

Larzelere,R. E. (2000)Weak evidence for a smackingban. BMJ 320,1538

25 SECTION 3

MacMillan, H. L., Boyle, M. H., Wong, A Y. Y., Duku, E. K, Fleming, J. E. and Walsh C.

A. (1999) Slapping and spanking in cbildhood and its associationwith lifetime prevalenceof psychiatric disorders in a general population sample. Canadian Medical Association Journal

161,805-809

Muslow, M., Caldera,Y. M., Paursley,M., Reifman, A. and Huston, A. C. (2002) Multilevel factorsinfluencing maternal stress during the first threeyears. Journal ofMarriage and the

Family 64,944-957.

Nobes, G. and Smith, M. (1997) Physical punishment of children in two-parent families.

Clinical Child Psychology 2,271-281

Orme,T. C. andCain, D. S. (2008)Predictors of mothers'use of spankingwith their infants.

Child Abuse and Neglect 32,649-657.

Patterson,G. R. (1982) Coercivefamily processes.Eugene, OR: Castalia

Parker,G., Tupling,H. andBrown, L. B. (1979)A ParentalBonding Instrument. British

PsYchOIOV 10 Journal ofMedical -52,1-

pavlov, I. (1927)Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress

Rodgers,B. (1996)Reported parental behaviour and adult affectivesymptoms. 1.

Associations and moderating factors. Psychological Medicine 26,51-61

26 SECTION 3

Rudy, D. and Grusec,J. E. (2006) Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associationswith maternal emotion and cognition and children's self-esteem.Journal offamily Psychology20,68-78

Shams,A and Williams, R. (1995) Differences in perceived parental care and protection and related psychological distressbetween British Asian and non-Asian adolescents.Joumal of

Adolescence18,329-348

Skinner, B. F. (1938) The behavior of organisms.New York: Appleton Century.

Slade, E. P. and Wissow, L. S. (2004) Spanking in early childhood and later behavior problems: A prospectivestudy of infants and young toddlers. Pediatfics 113(5), 1321-1330

Straus, M. A. (1994) Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books

Soanes,C. and Hawker, S. (2005) Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (3rd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press

Straus,M. A. andMather, A. K (1996)Social change and change in approvalof corporal punishmentby parentsfrom 1968to 1994.In D. Frehsee,W. Horn & KD. Bussman(Eds. )

Family violenceagainst children: a challengeforsociety (pp 91-105).New York: Walter deGruyter

27 SECTION 3

Turner (2007) Wales may go it alone over smacking ban. Available at: littp: Hiewales.icnetwork. co. uk

Accessed:11/02/08

Turner,H. andFinkelhor, D. (1996)Corporal Punishment as a Stressoramong Youth.

Journal ofMarriage and theFamily 58(l), 155-166.

Vasta, P, (1982) Physical Child Abuse: A dual-componentanalysis. DevelopmentalReview 2,

125-149

Wolfe, D. A. (1999) Child abuse: Implicationsfor child developmentandpsychopathology,

2nd ed. Newbury Park: SagePublications

Willow, C. and Hyder, T. (1998) "It Hurts You Inside ".- Children Talking about Smacking.

London: NCB/SCF

Wissow,L. S. (2002)Child disciplinein the first threeyears of life. In N. Halfon,K. T.

McLearn, & M. A. Schuster(Eds. ) Child rearing in America. Challengesfacing parents with young children(pp. 146-177)New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Yankelvich,D. (2000)What grown-upsunderstand about child development:a national benchmarksurvey. CIVITIS Initiative, Zero to Three,Brio, Researchedby DYG. Available at: mmm-co-Mu-n.c'MOM

Accessed:09/02/09

2R SECTION 3

Zliberstein, K (2006) Clarifying Core Characteristicsof Attachment Disorders: A Review of

Current Researchand Theory. American Journal of Orthopsychiat?y 76(l), 55-64

29- SECTION 3

APPENDIX A:

SubmissionGuidelines for Child Development

30 3rd party copyright material excluded from digitised thesis.

Pleaserefer to the original text to see this material. SECTION 4:

RESEARCH PAPER SECTION 4

Understanding personal experiences of being smacked: An IPA study with young

adults.

Ball, M. F., Hargreaves, 1. and Huws, J. C

Address for correspondence: North Wales Clinical Psychology Programme,

School of Psychology3,Bangor University, 43 College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd,

LL57 2DG SECTION 4

Abstract

Smacking is a common disciplinary method, which evokes significant controversy and debate.Quantitative studies have struggled to establish the effects of smacking due to methodological and conceptual complexities. Previous qualitative research with children and adolescentsrevealed that they can experience emotional distress whensmacked, and believed more effective methods of disciplinewere available. The presentstudy aimed to explore young adults' experiencesof being smackedduring childhood.Results indicated both commonalitiesand diversionsof experienceswithin the sample,which wereinfluenced by numerousfactors such as individual predispositions,attitudes and perceptions of smacking. Longer-term effects were discoveredto be positive for some participants but negative for others.It was concluded that although the experienceof smacking is not necessarilydetrimental, there exists a potential for some individuals, in combination with other factors, to

better for experiencelong-term emotional harm, and therefore it may be substituted altemativemethods.

Keywords: IPA; smacking; experiences;disciplinary methods

2 SECTION 4

1. Introduction

Smacking is a common disciplinary method with approximately 90% of British parentsreporting its use (Nobes & Smith, 1997). It is often viewed as being at the mild end of a continuum, with other more severeforms of corporal punishment and physical abuseat the alternate polarity (Gersboff, 2002). Nevertheless,the question of when exactly smacking may become abusive remains contentious. Furthermore, the effects of smacking can often entanglewith other poor parenting practices (Benjet &

Kazdin, 2003), such that, if negative effects appearto present in the child, it is difficult to establishtheir specific cause.Indeed, the majority of findings relating to smacking have been derived from researchinto corporal punishment, which includes a multitude of physical punishments.This is further complicated by the issuethat many quantitative studies of smacking have been correlational in nature, thereby preventing the clarification of causeand effect.

These methodological and conceptual complexities have made it difficult to effectively researchthe effects of smacking within a quantitative paradigm. Despite this, there has been relatively little qualitative researchin this topic area.

]. I Previous qualitative research

Willow andHyder (1998)conducted "discussion! ' groups with 76 childrenaged five to seven,74 of thesechildren had beensmacked. Children were askeda numberof Many questionspertaining to smacking. childrenreported that smackingwas physicallypainful andover a quarterreported that it madethem feel upset.Only 13 be childrenreported that they tried to goodafter being smacked and only onesaid they learntfrom their mistake.In contrast,14 participants reported that theywould be SECTION4 naughty,cheeky or nastyto their parentsafter being smacked.Almost all children thoughtsmacking was wrong.

Savethe ChildrenScotland (Cutting, 2001) and Childrenin Scotland(Scottish

Executive,2000) sought to gatherthe views of slightly older childrenaged six to eighteen.Opinions were harvested through focus groupsand questionnaires. Overall, childrenand young people did not think smackingwas the mosteffective form of disciplineand believed there were preferred alternatives. Three quarters said it was wrong for parentsto smackchildren. Many held the opinion that childrenshould only be smackedif they donesomething really bad andnearly all statedthat only parents shouldbe allowedto smacktheir children.Some participants related that the most appropriatemethod of disciplinewas dependenton the child, andthe child's ability to know right from wrong shouldbe accountedfor. Older childrenin the studywere moreopposed to smackingthan the youngerchildren.

As regardsparents' views, Brownlie (2006) held interviews and focus groups with 85 parents.They reported discomfort in inflicting pain on children and said smacking in shouldn't hurt. Such a finding is noteworthy in relation to the view of children the

Willow and Hyder study (1998) that smacking does causepain. Parentsrecognised

harm the possibility of emotional in older children but often viewed younger children

Nevertheless, feelings as only responsiveto physical stimuli. parentsdescribed of frustrated guilt after smacking a child and admitted that they often felt angry and before delivering the smack. Brownlie (2006) noted that there was largely an absence of recognition of children's rights.

A SECTION 4

Studiesso far though, which have utilised focus groups and questionnaires,have only presentedparticipants opinions, and quantifiedmuch of the narrative.They havenot conductedinterviews on an individual basisand reportedin-depth or rich descriptions of peoples'experiences of beingsmacked.

Brownlie,(2006) noted that understandingpersonal experiences of beingsmacked is particularly important as much discourse,particularly in relation to legislative debates,focuses on the physicalaspect of smackingand ignoresthe potential emotionalimpact of shame,embarrassment and anger that childrenmight experience.

Qualitativemethods emphasise the importanceof understandingindividual experiencesrather than trying to developa 'one size fits all' explanation.It is still possibleto observesimilarities across individuals and across studies, but theseare moremodest than those proclaimed in quantitativeresearch and are well groundedin dataderived from the individuals(Ellioý Fischer& Rennie,1999).

2. Reflexlyfty.

It should be noted that this is the reflective position of the first author who was the primary researcherand analyst. It does not reflect the positions of the other authors, who acted in a supervisory capacity. I am a female in my late twenties without in children. My interest conducting this researchwas generatedfrom both professionaland personalmotivations.

As a child I wassmacked regularly. I experiencedsmacking as upsetting and remembera senseof powerlessnessand feelingsof angerand resentment. I SECTION 4 questionedthe morality of smacking and felt that it was unjust and unfair. Smacking did usually elicit immediate compliance but not longer-term behavioural change.

Therefore, I found it difficult to comprehendhow smacking was a beneficial form of discipline. Nevertheless,in my clinical work with children and families I began to develop an understandingof how hard it can be for parents. I undertook further behaviour managementtraining and realisedjust how difficult a task parenting could be, and better understoodwhy parentsmight resort to smacking.

Therefore,I approachedthis researchwith somenegative personal experiences but clinical knowledgethat my initial 'anti-smacking'ideal may be unrealistic.I attemptedto maintainan opena mind as possibleand tried to acknowledgeand bracketthe influenceof my positionon all aspectsof the research.I havetried to hold in mind that it is the participants'stories that arekey, andmy aim was to relatethose storieswithout influencefrom my own.

3. Method

3.1 Oualitative Methodologv

Interpretative PhenomenologicalAnalysis (IPA) aims to explore and understandhow individuals make senseof their world and what various experiences,events and states mean for participants (Smith, 1996). It holds theoretical roots in phenomenologyand symbolic interactionism. Phenomenologicalpsychology emphasisesthe importance of It does a person's perception of the world. not attempt to produce objective accounts

(Smith, 1996). Symbolic interactionism recognisesthat individuals ascribe meanings to eventsbut advocatesthat such meaningscan only be accessedthrough a processof interpretation by the researcher.Therefore IPA acknowledgesthat researchers SECTION 4 approachtheir studieswith personalpreconceived values, ideas and beliefs, which will influencetheir interpretationand understanding of others' experiences(Smith,

1996).Results reflect a co-constructionbetween the participants'account and the researchers'interpretation of their data(Smith & Osborn,2003). In an attemptto control for researcherinfluences, it is usualto engagein a processof self-reflectionin orderto explicitly stateone's position in relation to the phenomenonunder study and

6bracket' this position,thereby enabling a greaterunderstanding of participants' experiences(Elliot, Fischer& Rennie,1999).

3.2 Participants

Participants were studentsattending a Higher Education establishmentwithin the UK

They opted into participating in the study by responding to electronic notices that had been placed on the establishment'sintranet, a researchrecruitment site, and to posters displayed on notice boards.Participants neededto be aged between 18 to 30 years and to have experienceand recall of being regularly smacked(i. e. at least once a month from the age of four, for a minimum of one year). In order to try and avoid disentanglementof the effects of other abuse,an adaptedversion of The Childhood

Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire (CECA-Q) (Bifulco et al. 2005)

(Appendix A) was used to screenout participants who had experiencedphysical, sexual or overt emotional abuseor neglect during childhood. Included in this were questionsrelating to the circumstancesof participants being smacked.All participants who completed screeningearned course and printer credits, and those who completed the full interview were enteredinto a prize draw in order to compensatethem for their time and effort. Twenty-five people expressedan interest in participation and SECTION 4

completedthe screeningprocedure. Of these 18 were unsuitable for inclusion as

outlined in Table 1.

(TableI insertedhere)

Of the seveneligible, six consentedto be involved in the research.The fmal sample

consistedof two males and four females aged 18 to 20 (please seeTable 2 and note

that participants were assignedpseudonyms).

(Table 2 inserted here)

3.3 Data Collection

Before interview, details of the study were outlined verbally and in written form to

participants; there was Opportunity to answer questions if any were raised and

participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time,

without detriment to their educational studies. After completing a consentform,

individual semi-structuredinterviews were conducted.

Attemptswere madeto askopen-ended rather than closedquestions and questions

were fannelledfrom the general(such as, " describean experienceof whenyou were

smacked')to morespecific (such as, "do you think it had any effect on you as a child?"). In orderto avoidthe interviewsbecoming too structured,and to allow participantsthe opportunityto sharetheir experiencesin a way meaningfulto them, questionswere formed around general areas of interest(Appendix B) as follows:

0 SEMON 4

" Background

" Significant experiencesgrowing up

" Different methods of discipline

" Experiencesof being smacked

o Circumstances

" Thoughts

" Feelings

o Reflections

" Effect on relationships

" General

o Attitudes towards smacking

" Endings

3.4 Analvsis

Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed into electronic documents.

Subsequently,each transcript was analysedin depth on an individual basis according to the procedureoutlined by (Smith & Osborn, 2003). This involved repeatedly reading through the transcript using the left margin to note important aspectsof what the participant was saying and the right margin to record developing themes.When all themeswere identified they were written up in a separatedocument with supporting

for quotes and themes eachtranscript were comparedand collated if necessary,to avoid repetition, and sub-themesgenerated. Although each transcript was analysed individually, there was inevitably some influence of earlier analysis on subsequent scripts. Continual checkswere made that themes could be traced back to transcripts,

9 SECTION 4 that is, that the write up was data driven. Emerging themeswere also checkedagainst transcriptsby the third author.

The subsequentstage of analysisinvolved the crosschecking of themesacross participants.This led to the emergenceof masterthemes with numeroussub-themes.

Then ensueda further clustering processof establishing connections between themes.

At this stagesome initial participant themes were discarded as they were either not consideredrelevant enough to the researchor they were not strongly grounded enough in participant data.

4. Findin

In accordancewith IPA guidelines, themes identified in the interviews were grouped into five master themes:Influences on individual experience;precursors to smacking; losing and regaining control; relationships with parents; and the potential for harm.

For further detail seeTable 3. Each theme is discussedand illustrated with verbatim extractsfrom the interviews.To preserveparticipants' anonymity, pseudonyms are used, and potentially identifying material has been changed.

Analysisgenerated numerous important themes. Each theme should be viewedas a continuum with experiencesof some participants being more relevant to that particular theme than others.

(Table3 insertedhere)

4.1 6n

Before presenting the themesit was thought beneficial to establish the context in

in which participants were usually smacked, order to optimise understandingof

10 SECTION 4

individual experiences.In addition, given the conceptual differences in the definition

of smacking, participantswere askedto describewhat they construed as a 'smack'.

For most participants a smack was construed as being struck with an open hand on a

part of the body's extremities. For one participant though, their interpretation of

smacking also included being hit with an object. The number of times participants

were smackedin one instancewas variable. Narratives revealed that parentstended to

vary in their disciplinary patterns and all participants reported that one parent tended

to predominate in enforcing discipline. For the majority of participants this was the

father.

Most of the timemum would be...ifwe annoyedmum she wouldjust sort ofshout and

say "wait till yourfather getshome " and thenshe'll tell dad and dad would be the

one who smackedus. (Fleur)

4.2 Themes

4.2.1 Influences on Individual Experience

Experiencesof being smackeddisplayed both considerabledivergence and

convergence.Serena had particularly negative reactions to being smacked,and her descriptions suggestedshe was predisposedto be sensitive to smacking. She perceived herself as a vulnerable individual who could not cope with being smacked.

don't I am veryphysically sensitive, CosI have a very high pain threshold.

(Serena)

II SEMON 4

In comparing herself to her brother, Serenaappeared to engagein a processof

&splitting', as sheperceived herself as 'all bad' and her brother as 'all good'. Such splitting appearedto influence her experienceof being smacked,with the insinuation that his experiencewas less negative than her own.

He might of experiencedit differentlybecause he was a lot betterbehaved than I was.

Sunday'schild is 'honny,blyth, good and gay, and all that malarkey.I was unluckily born on a Wednesday,full of woe' He definitelyexperienced it a lot moredifferently to mebecause I supposehe's a lot closerto myparents. (Serena)

In contrast,other participants, such as Fleur, perceivedthemselves as being less sensitive,and therefore better able to managethe experienceof beingsmacked.

WhereasI can takebeing smacked and stuff like that. So it wasdifferent. I think if my sisterhad beensmacked the amountI hadshewouldprobably resentmyparentsfor doing it becauseshe holds grudges quite well, she's always been very very sensitive.

(Fleur)

Indeed,all participantsrecognised. that individual predispositionswere important in being people'sexperiences of smacked,and many had internalisedthis ideainto their currentattitudes towards smacking.

Differentchildren need different sorts of discipline. (Sasha) SECTION 4

In contrast to Serena,Fleur reported largely positive experiencesof being smacked.

As hasbeen noted, she perceived herself as an individual who was betterable to managebeing smacked,but in addition she related how her strong Christian upbringingprovided a frameworkfor her disciplinaryexperiences.

becauseof the Christianaspect of it as well, at Sundayschool we were taughtabout punishment and consequencesand stuff like that. (Fleur)

Furthermore, Fleur held the belief that smacking was necessaryin her upbringing and developmentas child. Hereshe discusses the reactionsof someof her peersto her beingsmacked.

Yehbecause they were shocked, a lot of themwere shocked that I got smacked becausethey thought I was thegood kid And I was like well there's a reasonI'm the good kid! (Fleur)

These very positive attitudes towards smacking are likely to have, in turn, encouraged more helpful experiencesand reactions to being smacked.Similarly, attitudes towards influenced effectivenessof smacking reactions. Most participants viewed smacking as integral discipline. not only effective but also to

IfI couldgo backwithout my mumhitting meI don't think I would.Because I think at the endofthe dayyou needrespect and discipline. (Sasha) SEMON 4

For Fleur, other methodsof discipline just were not perceived as sufficient

punishment.Here she discusses the ideaof being grounded.

Becausethey weren't really beingpunished, when I was a kid I usedto think that's

not really a punishment that'sjust being told to stay inside and not go outsidefor a

coupleof days. (Fleur)

Nevertheless,the notion of effectivenesstended to be perceived in terms of immediate

compliance and participant's reports suggestedthat it failed to effectively induce

longer-termbehavioural changes.

Paul., That I couldn't be sure of I guessI probably did it again. But notfor a while, it would havestopped me at leastfor a while.

Researcher:Ok; how long's "a while" do you think?

Paul. Probably a month or so.

(Paul)

The meaningof smackingoften held moreresonance with the participantsthan the actualsmack.

usedto get like a smackbut it wasalways the idea of beingsmacked was always

worsethan actually being smacked I think (Stuart)

It was evidentacross the accountsthat smackingheld multiple meaningsfor the influences participants and subsequentlymultiple on how participants experienced SECTION 4 andreacted to beingsmacked. Nearly all participantsmade reference to the ideathat smackingwas perceived by both themselvesand their peersas the "ultimate punishment".Therefore to be smackedmust reflect that a child hadbeen engaged in seriousmisbehaviour.

Um it seemedlike, at the time, it seemedlike kind of the mostextremeform of punishment.Like ifyou were really naughty you used to get like a smack

(Stuart)

I thinkI kind ofsaw it as an ultimate punishment type thing.

(Paul)

In reality though,participants tended to be smackedfor what would likely to perceivedas 'everyday'misdemeanours, such as having an untidy bedroomor fighting with a sibling. Sucha discrepancy,between the perceivedmeaning of smackingversus its liberal employment,led someparticipants to makenegative internalattributions. Serena described an incidentin which shewas smacked for repeatedlymaking a spellingmistake.

,I mustbe really, really bad to deservethis' At the time I wassmacked there was that

(indecipherable)sometimes I thoughtI wasabsolutely rubbish at spelling,I should neverdO uWting again- (Serena)

Moreover,she appears to haveboth internalisedand generalisedthe intendedlesson from smackingto an extentthat this hasbeen unhelpful to her.

15 SECTION 4

Nen I spelt that person's name wrong three times I've never made a spelling mistake

once. Sort ofan OCD thing that I have to check every single wordjust to make sure

they're not spelt incorrectly. (Serena)

4.2.2 Precursors to smacking

Behaviour was explored both in terms of what incited the smack, and how

participants reactedto the imminent threat of being smacked. Smacking tended to be

incited by fairly mild misbehaviours,such as answering back to parents or not tidying

bedrooms.This led some participants to 'weigh up' the option of being smacked

againstdesires to achievetheir own goals.Therefore, the threatof being smackedwas

not necessarilya deterrentfor misbehaviour.

It's not effective long term, short term definitely but long term itiust makesyou think

oh I'm gonna get a smack ifI do this, is it worth it, yeah. Soyou like weigh out the doing. (Sarah) positives and negativescompared to what you're

Indeed,Fleur, who wasgenerally quite acceptingof being smackedand viewed it

quite positively,related how sheoften reactedwith defianceif shebelieved she was

going to be smacked.This themewas apparentin a numberof narrativesand reflected

the way smackingcould elicit finther unwantedbehaviour, rather than encourage

desiredbehaviour.

bit I already knew it was coming so the attitude wasiust a like, well ifI'm gonna get (laughs)I (Fleur) smackedI might as well get my money's worth SEMON 4

Researcher Right A and when you knew it was coming how didyoufeel?

PauL UmI don't knowkind oflike how muchofthis can I get away with sort ofthing.

(Paul)

The reasonsfor participantsbeing smackedwere often driven by parents'needs and occurred impulsively. Sarahbelieved her Dad reverted to smacking as a quick, easy option, whilst Serenafelt that smacking was driven by parental or family stress.

wasjust easy enoughfor him to give a smack becauseit demandedless attention, less trouble to go explaining to a child. (Sarah)

I'm not entirely sure. I supposefamily. tension contributed to the smacking or lack of smacking. (Serena)

2.3 Losing and regaining contro

The sensationof pain, and feelings of losing control, were integral to participants' experiencesof beingsmacked. This occurredin both a physicaland emotionalsense, and led to a senseof powerlessness,which participantsfound difficult to manage.

Therewas variationin the intensityof theseexperiences, which appearedto be moderatedby the circumstancesof the smackand the participant'sindividual dispositiOns-

But ifyou Ivejustbeen smacked it's a short sharppain that is shockingin itself becauseitjust happens. (Sarah) SECTION 4

Absolutely hor7ifled. It's not a very nice experience being smackedby someoneyou should trust really. I never really expectedit becauseit wasn't thatfrequent, maybe once a week or once afortnight. So it wasn't completely regular but it was very shockingand veryhonible. (Serena)

Paul dcscribed how such loss of control and powerlcssncsswas spccific: to smacking, as he felt unable to disguise the effects it had on him.

PauL Um I think uith the otherpunishments I wouldpretend that they hadn't botheredme verymuch. Nereas with smackingit wasmore difficult to pretendthat it hadn't botheredme cos it wasobvious that it had annoyedme quite a lot.

Researcher.And how was it obvious?

PauL By thefact that Id like cry or something. Whereaslike ifl wasjust sent to my room I'djust be like "whatever". (Paul)

participantsalso struggled with the boundariesenforced by their parents'and the inabilitY to settheir own bo=daries.

I think that becauseIjust couldn't get awaywith thingsbothered me more than (Sasha) anything. SEMON 4

These feelings becamemore acute with age, as participants felt more able to monitor their own behaviouras they got older andbegan to questionthe justification of the boundarieslaid downby parents.

I used to get either upset or angry while I was being told off. And I used to get more and moreangry thenas I got older, aboutbeing told off. (Stuart)

Indeed,in relationto perceptionsof it beingthe "ultimate punishmenf',when the smack was perceived as unjustified, participants' senseof control was further decreasedand subsequentdistress intensified.

And it wasyou know all the hiccupy can't cough kind of distraught you know. Really upset at thefact of that and Ifelt really that more than anything it was totally been didn't do unjustified that I'd smackedand I even really anything much wrong.

(Samh)

In contrast,when the smackwas perceivedas a justified responseto their misbehaviour,and participants understood the reasonsfor their smack,they were more acceptingof the action.

It, sjust I think the thing with thesmacking is it's not as had as ifyou've beenspoken had to and it's beenexplained WhY you've it, whyyou've had to be smacked,you little bit (Sarah) understanda more.

10 SECTION 4

At times participants' experienceswere invalidated, through various means.For

example, Stuart attemptedto protest againstwhat he perceived to be unjustified

punishment but this only led to further punishment. As a result Stuart's senseof

control was further diminished.

Generallythere were times when I thoughtshe was out of order smackingme and

I becauseId then... generally ended up getting a couple ofsmacks generally shout

back at herfor smacking me then get another one. (Stuart)

Another experienceof invalidation occurred when Stuart was asked to conceal his

emotional responseto being upset for the purpose of social desirability. This request

from Mum alsoreflects her recognitionthat smackingher child may be perceivedas

an undesirablebehaviour.

I'd actually been quite naughtY,my mum had given me a harder smack than usual, I her, must have really annoyed and I was crying my eyesout and she said to me -Stop So I don't know crying" as we were going up. whether she was embarrassedthat she like I used to smack me or maybefelt other people ...cos think my mum was quite bothered what otherpeople think. (Stuart)

Furthermoresuch invalidation continued into adulthoodand had a moresignificant impact on Stuartthan the smackingitself.

IA SECTION 4

I think the main thing that annoyed me about when I was smackedas a child isn't the fact that I wassmacked it's thefact that my mumalways claimed she didn't. And now she evensays she smacked me about twicewhen I was a kid. (Stuart)

Despitesuch an impactof the invalidation,even as an adult, Stuartchooses to collude with his mum in presentingthis versionof eventsas the truth and thereforemaintain a veneerof a 'socially acceptable'upbringing.

So that really does annoy me but to be honestIjust kind ofleave it, that one. (and say) "well I don't really remember". (Stuart)

in order to managetheir experiencesof being smackedand attempt to regain control participantsdeveloped a rangeof strategies.Sarah described mentally preparing herselfto be smackedin orderto try andminimise the shockof the experience.

I'd automaticallyjumpto the worst casescenario because I thoughtI can't be let down by what I'm thinkingnow, but ifl thought,oh he might he havinga good day know,I didn't do because and I mightjust get a 'look'you want to that Id be totally had shellshockedifhe actuallycome up and given mea goodseeing to. (Sarah)

Child A commonploy wasto threatenparents with Services,as a meansto try and avoid being smacked.

It I SECTION 4

So it was like using his threat back at him. It's like well ifhe can threaten me with a

smack I can threaten him with like the authorities kind of thing.

(Sarah)

Paulrelated how he exaggeratedthe effectsof him being smackedas a meansof

attemptingto inducefeelings of guilt in his parentsand thereforediscourage them

from smacking him again.

I remember like, it never really used to hurt that n!uch but I always used to make it

sound like it really did! Like cry a lot or something,justfor effect (laughs) to make

themfeel really really guiltyfor doing so. (Paul)

Furthermore,he evenresorted to more extrememisbehaviour in orderto try and

regainsome of the control in the relationshipwith his parents.Here he discussesan

incident in which he lockedhimself in the bathroomand began to flood it. He refused

to open the door until his parentspromised not to smack him.

Researcher:Ok so whenyou did that canyou rememberwhen you cameout the

bathroomdidyou avoidpunishment?

pauL I think I did but like myparents would be very off with me. Coslike oncemy had like parents hadpromisedsomething, they this very trust thing, oncethey'd promisedyou something,they'd actually usedthe word ýpromlsetheywon't go back day ifthey on that. And evento this tell you something,they'll like promisethat they'll do do it and they71 actually it, whichI think is nice. SoI kindagained control backin I P. ýpromises (Paul) a wayfrOln theil

97 SECTION 4

At other times participants were less subtle in their attempts to avoid punishment and made overt attemptsto escapefrom parentstrying to smack them.

Becausein the endyou couldpredict whenit wascoming, you think "run now".

(Sarah)

ifI knew it was coming I'd be like scared becauseI'd be like "I know this is going to really hurt" and Id try and run awayfrom it or whatever

(Sasha)

Thesenarratives indicate that not only was smackingextremely aversive to the participantsin this studybut that it alsoelicited considerabledefiance, which also links to precursorsof smacking.

4.2.4 Relationships with parents

Participants' relationships with their parentswere important in their experiencesof being smacked.The majority of participants reported good parental relations,

Nevertheless,because particularly with their mothers. of these good relationships being smackedcould also engendera senseof insecurity and confusion.

think it Wasiustlike, I got verYupset as well thinkingthat I'd annoyedmy mumto thepoint whereshe'd smacked me or whatever.Er especiallyas shewas the oneI'd I lot like kind alwaYs90 to ifl wasupset or whatever,so yeh think itfelt a of...the one

71 SECTION 4

person who you'd go to is the one who's that angry with you, I think that made me

quite upset (Stuart)

It alsocaused initial feelingsof resentmenttowards parents, though these were

usually short-lived.

Like immediately afterwards Iprobably wouldn't be that nice with them. I'd kinda be . a bit withdrawnfrom them.And I imagine that Id think like it didn't really affect me much after a couple ofhours. I think I'dforgotten by then. (Paul)

For Serenathough, the effectof smackingappeared much more destructive and ingrained,and eroded both the physicaland emotionalbonds with her parents.

I think soyeah, I meanwhen I waslittle I didn't really like to be touchedmuch, I liked to be left to do my thing.And the onlyphysical contactreally would sort of like be a hug and ifthe nextlot ofphysical contactis a smackthen that sort ofput me off being touchedby myparents. (Serena)

In spite of some negative short-term effects most participants reported overall positive

into Furthermore, felt parental relationships, which extended adulthood. Fleur that in had been foremost helping smacking, and the context which she was smacked, in form such positive relationships.

24 SECTION 4

it's I BecauseI tell myparents everything so ... think that's part of the whole smacking experience,standing up and telling them what I've done, to build that in.

(Flcur)

In contrastthough, there was alsoevidence that participantstended to minimise their experiences.Sarah described an incidentin which shewas smackedand particularly distressedby the smack,yet evenin this shortquote it is evidentthat sheis conscious of the impression she conveys.

it extremewhere he'd go like asfar as using anything but it wouldjust ... well wasn't be know it. Therewas one occasionthat he really did like gofor it ...you'd about it bad. (Sarah) really but that wasreally ... wasn't too

Even Serena,who talked at length about her negative experiences,at times would

focus attempt to shift the onto a positive aspectof smacking.

like doing That combined with emotional insecurity sort of wor?ying about something being is know I wrong the whole time then smacked ...you was a very good student I behaved, I is when I was at school, was always very well which suppose another becauseit taught to be very good thing about smacking really me a very well to behaveimpeccably. (Serena) manneredperson and taught me

being Thesepatterns of minimisingtheir experiencesof smacked,appeared to feelings function to protectthe participants against of excessivenegativity about their parentalrelationships. It be focus childhood experiencesand may that excessive on

25 SECTION 4

negative experiencesof smacking resulted in an internal incongruence for

participants, who generally viewed their childhood and parental relationships in a

positive light. Indeed, participants appearedkeen to protect the perceptions of their

parents,which sometimesled to contradictions within their narratives. For example,

early in the interview Serenadescribed her parentsas follows

I wouldn't say they're abusive butjust very very strict. (Serena)

Whereaslater sherefers to the smackingas abusive.

it's bad becauseit is it's blefonn Serena:Id say a thing ...well not a te?7! ofabuse but

it's still abuseall thesame. I meanit didn't'like causeme to haveany brokenbones

orpermanent skin damage but it still hurt enough to make me think, 'I want to avoid

that pain as much as possible'.

Researcher-But emotionallyyoufeel it affectedyou?

Serena:Definitely

(Serena)

Another reasonfor minimisingthe effectsappeared to be linked to socialdesirability,

as participantsnoted that theywere anxiousnot to portray a negativeimage of their parentsand childhood experiences.

it I mean you can't really talk to people about when you're older cos I thinkyou always worry thatyou're gonna makeyour parents, well in particularyour mum or disciplinedyou, I thinkyou're ied that whoever woi? you're going to make themsound

26 SECTION 4

like a horrible person who was really mean to you when you were a kid (.. ) but

be it it's you've got to careful what you say about to people which makes... quite a (Stuart) social, what's the word... taboo.

4.2.5 The potential for harm

Again participantsdisplayed both similaritiesand differencesin the wayssmacking

affectedtheir long-termdevelopment. For most, smackingwas perceivedas a neutral

or positive experience.

And I like who I am so it's, I don't think I would like myset(ifI had so little sey-'

respect andl love thefact that I can sayyes I've got thesemorals andyes I'm a

Christian andyes I've got all of this. AndI think a largepart of that was due to the

way my parents raised me, and the way my parents raised me included smacking.

(Fleur)

Whilst for Serena,the negativeeffects of smackingpersisted into adulthood.

I think so.I meanthere are quite afew experiencesin childhoodthat couldhave

affectedme hut smackingdefinitely didplay a massiverole in how I grew up,feels I

know that's definitelynot the way to treatpeople. (Sercna)

Serenadeveloped coping strategies of adoptinga passiverole in orderto avoid conflict, asshe had developedbeliefs that physicalaggression was integralto conflict.

1)17 SECTION 4

Um well it's made me absolutely terrified of being hit. Like I will try to avoid arguments whereverpossible at all times. (Serena)

Nevertbeless,on occasionsthis coping strategy was impossible to maintain and

Serenawould find herselfbecoming aggressive.

At thesame time I get very very sensitiveso ifsomeonedoes touch a raw nerveI will explode. But it does take a lotfor them tofind that raw nerve. IfI do get into a confrontationwith someoneit doesturn very nastybecause I hatebeing confronted, I hate being argued with, which is why I'll very readily admit I'm wrong. even when

I'm not, just so I don't get into an argument with people.

(Serena)

Serena'sexperiences illustrate the potentialfor smacking,in combinationwith other factors,to exert long-termnegative effects on development,which appeardeep-rooted and probably difficult to change.

5. Discussion

Resultsfrom the currentstudy align with the generalliterature regarding smacking, in that participantsin the currentsample reported both considerablediversity and similarity in their experiencesof being smacked.Even the fundamentalconcept of what is a smackdiffered according to participant,which reinforcesthe conceptual coniplexitiesof this topic area.Furthertnore, the presentstudy has established that factors influcnced numcrous participants, cxpericnccs. Such variations in cxpcricnccs

-a SECTION 4

and in moderatinginfluences have contributed to this topic areabeing particularly

difficult to investigatewithin a quantitativeparadigm. Furthermore, it hasbeen

positedthat the effectsof smackingmay be moderatedby what the experiencemeans

to the child, which canbe influencedby numerousextraneous factors (Gunnoe &

Mariner, 1997).

The contextin which participantswere smacked was disparate.It was sometimes

driven by parentalmotivations whilst at othertimes, appeared to derivefrom a more

child-centredperspective. This in part concurswith the findings from Brownlie

(2006),wherein parents reported feelings of angerand frustrationbefore smacking

their children.It wasof note in the presentstudy that it was often fatherswho were

the main enforcersof smacking.What was commonacross participants was the child behaviourthat triggeredthe smacking,was often misbehaviourone might perceiveas relatively minor, for example,being untidy or answeringback parents.Such a liberal useof smackingcontradicted the participants'beliefs that smackingreflected the

4sultimatepunishmenf'. This led someto makenegative intemal attributionsin order to rationalisethe reasonsfor their smack.This finding echoesthat reportedin the

Childrenin Scotlandstudy (Scottish Executive, 2000), in which childrenreported beliefsthat they shouldonly be smackedif they havedone something particularly bad.

The experienceof beingsmacked differed, often in accordancewith contextand other variablessuch as the participants'predispositions and attitudes towards smacking. being Nevertheless,pain upon smackedwas experiencedby all individualsin the study,which supportsprevious qualitative research (e. g. Willow & Hyder, 1998).

10 SECTION 4

Loss of control,which includedfeelings of shock,upset and feelingsof invalidation,

was alsoapparent in participants'experiences. The experienceof invalidationwas felt

particularlyimportant to note, as it is possiblethat othersmay feel invalidatedin their

experiencesof beingsmacked and invalidatingexperiences in childhoodcan be a risk

factor for later psychologicaldifficulties suchas borderline personality disorder

(Linehan,1993). Relationshipswith parentswere usually effectedshort-term as

participantsreported a weakenedsense of securityand temporarywithdrawal.

Importantly,over the longer-termone participant reported that smackingbad

contributedto a positiverelationship with her parents,whilst anotherrelated that

smackinghad contributedto difficulties in her parentalrelationship. Such a finding highlightsthe complexityof individual differencesin the experienceof smacking.

Somerecognition of individual differenceswas also noted in the Childrenin Scotland study(2000).

Participants developed a range of coping strategiesto help them managetheir experiencesof being smacked,the majority of which could be construed as defiant.

Therefore, the effectivenessof smacking could be questioned.Nevertheless, participants tended to view smacking as an effective method of managing behaviour in the short term, though acknowledged that it had not been so effective in managing their behaviour over the longer-term. Despite this, most alluded that smacking was integral to discipline. These findings are somewhatcontrasting to earlier studies, which have reported little support from children and young people for the effectivenessof smacking and a majority belief that smacking is wrong. This may be in becauseparticipants the present study were slightly older and no longer in family home. permanently residing the They may have been consideringhaving SECTION 4

children of their own sometime in the future and therefore reflecting on the issue from

a potential parental standpoint as well as their own childhood position. It could also

be becausethe currentparticipants tended to minimisethe negativeeffects of their

experiences,and attemptedto monitor the perceptionthey conveyedof their

childhoodand parents. In part this seemedto stemfrom a needto conformto social

pressures,though it may also have served a function of preventing participants from

negative feelings towards their parents, which would likely be difficult to assimilate

with their generally positive parental perceptions.Nevertheless, it must also be borne

in mind that a range of both positive and negative experiencesare likely to occur

during childhood, and given that smacking may be generally perceived as negative,

participants were maybe keen to retain some focus on positive aspectsin order to

present a holistic view.

S.I Limitadons

It is important to note that the presentresults are not necessarilyreflective of all

young people's experiencesof being smackedbut are an interpretation of the current is sample's experiences.It possible that the phenomenadescribed in the present but sample do resonatewith other people the aim of IPA researchis not to establish

theory applicable to all. Indeed the participant sample itself was not necessarily

this it reflective of the wider population of age group, as was a small number of from higher institute, participants selected a education who met the inclusion criteria.

-fbis was not too limiting as regards the present study, as it is beneficial to have more in IPA (Smith & Osborn, 1101nogeneoussamples studies 2003). Nevertheless,future

beneflitfrom the study of different populations, such as children and research would

individuals leaming disability. Similarly, young people in the care system or with a

II SECnON4 time constraintsin the currentresearch did not allow for triangulation,that is, gatheringinformation from different perspectives.This is considereda goodmethod of ensuringvalidity (Elliot, Fischer& Rennie,1999) and againwould likely prove beneficialin furtherqualitative research of this topic.

5.2 Conclusion , Participants'accounts indicate both positiveand negative experiences of smacking.

From a practicalperspective, it is often driven by parentalstress and although may instil immediatecompliance, can alsoelicit defiance.When smackingwas perceived asbeing in accordancewith the individual's actions,and was employedin a controlledmanner, accompanied by an explanation,it wasmore effectivein achieving behaviouralchange. Nevertheless, the experiencesof beingsmacked could be associatedwith long-termnegative outcomes. Therefore, despite the positive experiencesreported by someparticipants, if smackingcan, alongside other factors, be associatedwith emotionalharm, parents need support to utilise othermethods, which hold lesspotential for harm. SEC"'rION4

6. References

Benjet,C. andKazdin, A. E. 2003: Spankingchildren: The controversies,findings andnew directions.Clinical PsychologyReview 23,197-224

Bifulco, A., Bernazzani0., Moran, P.M. andJacobs, C. 2005:Childhood Experience of Careand Abuse Questionnaire (CECA. Q) Validationin a communityseries.

British Journal of Clinical Psychology 44,563-581

Brownlie, 12006: 'The BasicStuff of Our Memories':Embodying and Embedding

Discipline. Sociological ResearchOnline 11(4)

Available at: http://www. socresonline. or2. uk/I 1/4/brownlie.html

Accessed11/02/08

Brownlie, J. andAnderson, S. 2006:Beyond Anti-Smacking. Childhood 13(4), 479-

498.

Children in Scotland2000: Physical Punishment of Childrenin Scotland.A consultationwith childrenand young people. Scottish Executive

Cutting, E. 2001:"It doesn'tsort anythingl" A report on the views of childrenand young peopleabout the use of Physicalpunishment. Edinburgh: Save the Children scotiand SEMON 4

Department of Health 2000: Protecting Children, Supporting Parents.A Consultation

Documenton the PhysicalPunishment of Children.London: DoH

Elliot, R., Fischer,C. T. andRennie, D. L. 1999:Evolving guidelinesfor publication

of qualitativeresearch studies in psychologyand related fields. British Joumalof

Clinical Psychology3 8,215-229

Gershoff,E. T. 2002:Corporal Punishment by Parentsand Associated Child

Behaviors and Experiences:A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological

Bulletin 128(4),539-579

Gunnoe,M. L. andMariner, C. L. 1997:Toward a developmental-contextualmodel of

the effectsof parentalspanking on children'saggression. Archives of Pediatricsand

AdolescentMedicine 151,768-775

Linehan, M. M. 1993: Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality

Disorder.New York Guildford Press

Nobes,G. andSmith, M. 1997:Physical punishment of childrenin two-parcnt familics. Clinical Child Psychology2,271-281

Smith,J. A. and Osborn,M. 2003:Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In:

Smith,J. A., editor,Qualitative Psychology: A PracticalGuide to ResearchMethods, pp 51-81.London: Sage Publications Ltd

14- ---, SECTION 4

Smith, J. A. 1996: Beyond the Divide Between Cognition and Discourse: Using

Interpretative PhenomenologicalAnalysis in Health Psychology. Psychology and

Health 11,261-271

Willow, C. andHyder, T. 1998:"It Hurts You Inside": ChildrenTalking about

Smacking.London: NCB/SCF SEMON 4

Table 1: Reasonsparticipants were unsuitable for inclusion

Emotionalabuselneglect 6 Physical/sexualabuse 4 Unclearmemories 5 Smackedtoo infrequently 2 Unableto speakfluent English I

36 ---- SEMON4

Table 2: Participant pseudonymsand corresponding ages

Age Sarah 20 Stuart 19 Fleur 18 Paul 20 Sasha 18 Serena 18

17 SEMON4

Table 3: Summary of themes

Influences on Indii-idual experience " Predispositions I am very physically sensitive, cos I don't have a very high pain threshold. (Serena)

" Attitudes Yeh becausethey were shocked,a lot of them were shocked that I got smacked becausethey thought I was the good kid. And I was like well there's a reason I'm the good kid! (Fleur)

" The meaning of being smacked I think I kind ofsaw it as an ultimate punishment type thing. (Paul)

Precursors to smacking " Def tance I already knew it was coming so the attitude wasjust a bit like, well ifI'm gonna get smackedI might as well get my money's worth (7aughs)! (Fleur)

" Parental motivations It wasjust easy enoughfor him to give a smack becauseit demandedless attention, less trouble to go explaining to a child. (Sarah)

Losing and regaining control Emotional reactions But ifyou'vejust beensmacked it's a short sharp pain that is shocking in itsetf becauseitiust happens. (Sarah)

" Boundaries I think that becauseIjust couldn't get away with things bothered me more than anything. (Sasha)

" Invalidation And it was you know all the hiccupy can't cough kind of distraught you know. Really upset at thefact of that and Ifelt really that more than anything it was totally unjustifled that Id beensmacked and I didn't even really do anything much wrong. (Sarah)

" Coping So it was like using his threat back at him. It's like well if he can threaten me with a smackI can threaten him with like the authorities kind of thing. (Sarah)

38 SECTION 4

Relationships with parents Like immediately afterwards Iprobably wouldn't be that nice with them. Id kinda be a bit withdrawn from them. And I imagine that Id think like it didn't really affect me much after a couple of hours. I think Idforgotten by then. (Paul)

Nfinimising it he'd experiences ...well wasn't extremewhere go like asfar as using anything but it would just be know it. There ...you'd about was one occasion that he really did like gofor it but it really that was really ... wasn't too bad. (Sarah)

The potential for harm Um well it's made me absolutely ter7ifted of being hit Like I will try to avoid arguments whereverpossible at all times. (Serena)

39 SEMON4

APPENDIX A:

AdaptedCECA-Q and additional screening questions

40 3rd party copyright material excluded from digitised thesis.

Please refer to the original text to see this material. SEMON 4

APPENDIX B:

Interview Schedule

44 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

The following questionsand prompts were used as a guide only:

Tell me a bit about yourself and your background o How would you describe yourself as a person? o What do you like to do in your sparetime? o What part of the world are you from? o Describe your family

Tell me a bit about your experiences growing up o Earliest memory 0 Any events or experiencesthat stand out? 0 School experiences 0 Childhood relationships - tell me a bit about the people you were close to - family or friends

Can you tetl me about the different ways your parent(s)/caregivers managed your behaviour whilst you were growing up? 0 What would happen if you behavedwell? 0 What would happen if you were naughty? 0 How did you feet about that method of discipline? 0 Which method of discipline did you think was best?Why? 0 Have any of these methods had a longer-term impact on you? 0

Describe an experience of when you were smacked 0 Under what circumstanceswere you usually smacked? 0 How often were you smacked? 0 What did you think about being smacked? 0 How did you feel about being smacked? 0 How do you feel now, looking back? 0 Do you think it had any effect on you as a child? 0 Do you feel those experienceshave had any effect on you now, as a young adult 0 Can you tell me whether the experienceof being smackedhas shaped you as an adult?

Can you tell me whether being smackedaffected your relationshipsIn any way? 0 Relationshipwith parents 0 Relationshipwith siblings 0 Relationshipswith friends- was it somethingyou talkedabout with friends General " How do you feel aboutsmacking now - positiveor negative? " Would you recommendsmacking as a disciplinarystrategy?

Ending " What has it been like to be interviewed today? " is there anything else you would like to discussor you think might be helpful for me to know? SECTION 4

APPENDIX C:

SubmissionGuidelines for "Qualitative Researchin Psychology""

47 3rd party copyright material excluded from digitised thesis.

Pleaserefer to the original text to see this material. SECTION 5:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE SECTION 5

theselarger studieshave focused on establishing more generalisedopinion about

smacking. Therefore, there remains opportunity to develop a deeperunderstanding of children and adolescents'experiences of being smacked.Furthermore, there is a notable absenceof researchwith different child populations such as those in care or those with a learning disability. Given that these children have additional difficulties to manageit would be important to learn more about their experiencesof being smacked.Similarly thereis a lack of in depthqualitative research with adults.This would be beneficial in terms of exploring longer-term effects. It would be particularly interesting to interview parentswho were smackedduring childhood, in order to try and understandhow their experienceshave contributed to their current role as a parent.

The current study revealed that participants tended to minimise their accountsof being smacked,and attemptedto focus on the positive aspectsof theseexperiences.

This appearedto relate, in part, to a desire to presenta 'socially acceptable' account of their parentsand childhood. Nevertheless,the presentstudy also suggestedthat, in minimising their experiences,participants were better able to internally assimilate their experiencesand therefore maintain a more positive perception of their parents and upbringing. This proposition would benefit from further investigation.

Implications for Clinical Practice

Findings from the current study indicate a number of important clinical implications for practice. They suggestthat smacking, although som'etimes beneficial for both does hold parent and child, the potential to negatively affect individuals. The way in

2 SECTION 5

which smackingaffects an individual appearsto be associatedwith numerousfactors

suchas, personal predispositions, attitudes, beliefs and the contextin which the

smackingoccurs.

Descriptionsfrom participantssuggested that parentstended to smackin responseto

their own stressrather than for the benefitof the child. Indeed,parents themselves

havereported feelings of angerand frustrationin the leadup to smackingtheir child

(Brownlie,2006). This is importantin termsof working with parentsof children,both

in termsof validatingtheir experiences,and in helpingthem develop alternative ways

of managingtheir child behaviourthat is not drivenby their difficult emotions.

The findingsprovide further supportfor the implementationof child behaviour

managementprogrammes, such as the Incredible Years programme (Webster-

Stratton, 2005). Furthermore, the findings suggestedthat it was often Fatherswho took responsibility for implementing the smacking, therefore this emphasisesthe

importance of engagingthem in parenting interventions.

There was a generalconsensus amongst participants that the effectivenessof smackingwas optimal when it wasperceived as being in accordancewith the level of misbehaviour,and when accompanied by an explanation.Participants in the current studytended to perceivesmacking as the 'ultimatepunishment' and similar views were evidentin researchconducted by Childrenin Scotland(Scottish Executive,

2000).In practicehowever, smacking was frequentlyemployed for what would likely be consideredas 'everyday'misdemeanours, such as answeringback or havingan untidy bedroom.This led someparticipants in the currentstudy to internalisenegative SEMON 5 attributions as regardsthe reasonsbehind smacking. For example, some reported that, as children, they believed that they as individuals must be bad in order to deserve being smacked.In working with parents it is important that they be made aware of the dynamics and the potential for emotional harm. Furthermore, if smacking is regularly implemented as a sanction for 'everyday', more common, misbchaviours, it leavesthe parent with little room for manoeuvre if the child displays more severemisbehaviour.

Again, parentswho seekhelp or are referred for help in managing their child's behaviour, as might occur in Child Psychology Services, should be made aware of such dynamics.

One participant in the current study described a senseof invalidation associatedwith being smacked.This occurred both in childhood, when his mother askedhim not to cry after being smacked,and also in adulthood, when his mother denied using smacking as a disciplinary technique. Although this experiencewas only germaneto one participant, it was thought important to note due to the potential of invalidating experiencesto affect longer-tenn outcomes(Linehan, 1993). If such an experience was significant to one individual it may be relevant to others. Despite the recollection of his experiences,as an adult the participant reported colluding with his mother to support her claims she did not smack him during childhood. This causedhim considerablefrustration and even feelings of anger.Nevertheless, he continued to engagein such collusion. Similarly, all Participantstended to minimise the negative aspectsof their childhood experiences.This appearedto be associatedwith social desirability factors, and a motivation to present their parentstreatment of them within socially acceptableterms. It may also have been difficult for some of them to assimilate their negative experienceswith their overall positive perception and

4 SEMON 5 portrayal of their childhood and parental relationships. These findings hold implications for therapeutic work both within child and adult services.Children engagedin mental health servicesare likely to be living with one or both parents and therefore may feel significant pressureto remain loyal to their parentsand present them in a socially appropriate light. As participants in the current study were adults, it is noteworthy that they continued to protect the perception of their parents and such behavioursmay well present in clients attending for therapy. Nevertheless,it must also be bome in mind that a range of both positive and negative experiencesare likely to occur during childhood, and therefore clinicians must be careful not to stigmatise. SEMON 5

References

Benjet, C. and Kazdin, A. E. (2003) Spanking children: the controversies,findings, and new directions. Clinical Psychology Review 23,197-224

Brownlie, J. (2006) 'The Basic Stuff of Our Memories': Embodying and Embedding

Discipline. Sociological Research Online 1](4)

Available at: hqp://Nviv,, v. socresonline.org. uk/I 1/4/brownlie.litml

Accessedon 11/02/08

Childrenin Scotland(2000) Physical Punishment of Childrenin Scotland.A consultation with children andyoungpeople. Scottish Executive

Cutting, E. (200 1) "It doesn't sort anything! "A report on the views of children and youngpeople about the use ofphysicalpunishment. Edinburgh: Save the Children

Scotland

Elliot, R., Fischer, C. T. and Rennie, D. L. (1999) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitativeresearch studies in psychologyand related fields. British Journal of

Clinical Psychology 38,215-229

Gershoff,E. T. (2002)Corporal Punishment by Parentsand Associated Child

Behaviorsand Experiences: A Meta-Analyticand Theoretical Review. Psychological

Bulletin 128(4), 539-579

6 SECTION 5

Linehan, M. M. (1993) Skills Training Manualfor Treating Borderline Personality

Disorder.New York: Guildford Press

Webster-Stratton,C. (2005) TheIncredible Years:A Trouble-ShootingGuidefor

Parents of Children Aged 2-8 Years. Seattle: Incredible Years

7 SECTION 6:

WORD COUNTS SECTION 6

WORD COUNTS

Abstract 250

Ethics Proposal

Excluding referencesand appendices 3346

Including referencesand appendices 5272

Reflective Commentary 597

Literature Review

Excluding referencesand appendices 5975

Including referencesand appendices 7168

Research Paper

Excluding referencesand appendices 6994

Including referencesand appendices 7769

Contributions to theory and clinical practice

Excluidingreferences and appendices 1187

Including referencesand appendices 1367

Total

Excludingreferences and appendices 18,349 including referencesand appendices 21,576