What are the opinions on smacking?

[ihatecbeebies]

I personally don't smack and use the naughty step and take away privileges but a few friends smack if it is something serious the child has done and sometimes I've wondered if the naughty step is enough, what are everyone else's thoughts?

I don't smack and never have....i am amazed at some parents who do in response to kids hitting other kids for example and will shout (whilst hitting) " don't you ever hit him/her again". Whats all that about??

haha yeah I did think that myself, kind of sending out mixed messages there!

I would imagine that there are a few groups:

1. I don't smack
2. I do smack
3. I don't like to smack but have done once or twice
4. I smack if they run into the road

For myriad reasons I would never, ever smack a child. I wouldn't use a naughty step either.

ShowOfHands what discipline method do you normally use?

If you don't use the naughty step or take away privileges what do you use that does work (not that I'm clawing for ideas or anything)

SOH - I'm #4. I will smack in case of behaviour that could potentially lead to maiming or death. Works for us.

I don't, I used smacks when DS was too young to understand explanations for why he shouldn't run in the road/stick his hand in the fire because it's the only way to teach a child that young to fear doing something and I think that's better than the alternatives. But I don't believe in smacking older children, all the research evidence suggests it doesn't actually serve as a deterrent and that the kids are more likely to end up resenting their parents and being anti-social and aggressive. So, we use loss of priveleges if he misbehaves.

DS is 23mo and I have never smacked him and hope I never will. I don't understand how smacking nurtures and teaches.

My mum used to smack me and my 2 brothers. I was smacked throughout my childhood including once when I was 16yo for wearing jewellery to school. All she taught me was to not trust her, to not feel comfortable being tactile with her (although I am with others) and to hide things from her if I thought she wouldn't be happy. She then would tell me I was deceitful - eg: when she found that I had continued to write in a diary at the age of 13yo after she had told me not to and ripped up my previous one.

I guess you can understand why I don't agree with smacking!

Sorry I meant I don't smack but instead I used the naughty step and take away privileges

ah that makes more sense :)

I was smacked throughout my childhood too. I remember it working until a point when I figured out that the worst thing I would get as a result of misbehaving was a smack to the legs.. big fucking deal, didn't hurt that much, was over in a second and totally worth it to be able to bugger off round the village with my mates or (more frequently) fight with my Sister, as the repurcussions were pretty tame really.

I don't feel abused as a result of being smacked (and I was, a lot) but I do know that it was fucking pointless.

I do clearly remember the last time my Dad hit me though. I can't remember why, but he whacked me round the head while I was eating a yoghurt. He walked out of the room and followed him and launched the remaining yoghurt at his head. He belted me into the cupboards so hard it made my ears ring. I screamed bloody murder, bitched, complained and in typical 13-yo me style did everything I possibly could to make my Dad feel as bad as I did.

Essence ... the use of smacking with young children who can't understand explanations for why they shouldn't do something is based in behaviourist research. It's a pretty common sense approach - the child learns to associate certain actions with certain responses. So, if they do something good and they're praised, they're more likely to do it again. If they do something dangerous and they're punished, they're less likely to do it again. If, every time they do it, they're punished - they stop doing it. All the research evidence suggests that for punishment to work it has to be immediate, consistent and severe enough to make the child want to avoid it. So, if you're out and your child runs into the road, sending them to their room when they get home, is unlikely to change the behaviour. You need to do something there and then that's severe enough to make them think "Sheesh, I don't want to do that again" and obviously with young children, an explanation of the possible consequences isn't going to work.

However, with older children who can understand explanations and the cause-effect of actions, smacking serves no real purpose and tends to just make kids resent their parents or fear them. So that principle only applies to pre-verbal children and I would say, should only be used to teach children to fear danger or deal with extreme behaviours. Any other behavioural lessons can wait until the kid's a bit older.

There's a bunfight coming, isn't there?

I don't smack and I don't agree with smacking.

I'm sure if I smacked my children when they did something wrong they would soon learn to associate that pain and humiliation with their behaviour, but I can't see why any parent would want to create that association. I don't want them to learn that they mustn't do things in case I hit them. These are my feelings for people of every age, from tiny baby and toddler through pre-teen to teenager and into adulthood.

To be honest, although I do occasionally use them, punishments in general make me feel uneasy. I think a punished child tends to feel humiliated and oppressed and that's a pretty low starting point for learning positive behaviours.

I was brought up in a non-smacking environment (abroad) so smacking isn't really something I thought of doing; it just wouldn't come naturally to me.

Used an array of different techniques instead: holding onto them near roads (or using reins), making sure I engaged them in conversation just before we got on the bus or entered a shop or anywhere else where they might misbehave through boredom, took things away from them if they couldn't play nicely with them, removed them from a situation where they were behaving badly, used The Look, very occasionally used the naughty step or withdrew privileges.

I would say that on the whole my dcs have grown up with the expectation that they have to do as we tell them- though of course now that they are growing up (teen and pre-teen) they have far more of a voice in any family decision. And their teachers often comment on their good manners, so doesn't seem to be a problem there either.

As I remember my own childhood, my parents rarely used punishments, but have a great deal of natural authority.

I can't think of any justification to smack.

I can think of reasons though - nameably the parent is angry or has lost control.

Physical dominance teaches them nothing about the world apart from to grow up to hit others.

I was hit humiliatingly as a child, I worked in my parents hotel and my mother slapped me round the face in front of guests for dropping a pen. I was 15 and I turned round and slapped her back. For the first and last time as she never hit me again.

I think if there's strong research evidence that something works, it's reasonable to follow that. Children often don't like injections, vegetables, school, bedtime or baths ... we wouldn't refuse to implement them just because the child's experience was a negative one. I think the same principle applies to smacking, there's evidence it teaches pre-verbal children to avoid specific behaviours, so it's a reasonable tool to use when you want to teach children to avoid danger. Because no-one can watch a child all the time, around every possible danger in and out of the home.

It's not for everyone, but strong research evidence is justification for its use. I think the assumption that any parent who uses smacking is out of control or seeking to physically dominate their child is offensive. It may be true of some parents, but it's a sweeping generalisation.

I too was hit as a child and don't agree with using physical punishment to intimidate or humiliate children. Pre-verbal children aren't subject to humiliation or intimidation though. They haven't developed the understandings necessary to interpret the experience of being smacked in those terms. They simply associate it with the action they've just taken. Which makes it an effective teaching tool at that age.

How much evidence is there that you can rely on a child who has once been smacked never to run into the road again? I've never seen any research on this, but my own hunch is that there are no more or accidents or death to pre-verbal children in countries where smacking is illegal/socially unacceptable?

Besides, if parents can't watch their children all the time, how can they be sure the child doesn't get killed the first time they run into the road, before you have time to smack? Smacking will only obviate the second incident, not the first. You can't teach them by smacking until they've had the opportunity to actually do the dangerous behaviour. Which seems unsafe to me.

I'm not sure if anyone's ever tested that, but there's very strong evidence from a number of studies that children will avoid anything that they associate with an unpleasant experience and common sense indicates that to be true - for example, how many children avoid brussels sprouts and stingy nettles in comparison to chocolate and daffodils?

The argument that you can't use smacking to avoid the first instance of any exposure to danger is a ridiculous one. You can't use any method to avoid the first instance, except following your child around 24/7.

Well, if they are pre-verbal, surely you don't let them out in a dangerous environment on their own? Unless in a childproof room, I did keep an eye on my toddlers all the time. The idea that you could trust such a young child to remember that they were smacked for a certain behaviour several months ago just seems totally unsafe to me. Young children have short memories and little impulse control. Which is why they are not usually allowed out unsupervised near traffic.

No smacking here.

If my child is in a position where they can run in to the road/put their hand in the fire surely that is my fault not theirs?

I'm not a fan of behaviourism (except for training animals). Iirc even skinner who developed the idea and whose work ideas like "time out" are based on didn't think it should be used on most children.

I agree with ElenStone.

I would add that for some children, the "naughty step" or similar can actually be more upsetting than being smacked. And if smacking could teach violence, then "naughty step" could teach them to be controlling/ignore other people/etc.

All methods of discipline have some potential disadvantages.

No smacking here - seriously don't believe any good comes of it.
No naughty step or similar either when DS was yonger - lots of firm words, negotiating and explaining. He is now 8 and a (mostly) well-behaved, good kid.

There seems to be a growing body of child development experts who don't believe reward/punishment is actually an effective form of discipline for any age of child. That includes physical punishment, naughty steps, star charts and the like.
I've been reading the first in the Positive Discipline series of books, which has a lot of interesting things to say about encouraging children to behave in a safe and socially acceptable fashion without using rewards/punishments.
The authors do not advocate permissiveness.

My sister and I were smacked as children and when my older sister hit me and she was told off, she'd say it was because I was 'being naughty'. Clearly sends out a mixed message as she couldn't understand why it was ok for us to be smacked when we were naughty, but not ok for her to smack her younger sister. We've never smacked our children, but the naughty step got plenty of use with the terrible twos phase! DD1 is now nearly 4 so taking away privileges works at the moment.

Don't smack and never have smacked (eldest 23 and youngest 8) very rarely used the naughty step. Dd reminds me that I did once when she was five although she doesn't remember why I put her there. I notice every positive and acknowledge it, unwanted behaviour results in a loss of my attention and a chat later on what I would have preferred to see.It seems to work for us.

On the very odd occasion that I have resorted to it I know that I have failed as a parent and have apologised.

I would like to think i will never smack DS as i believe that smacking is a loss of control in response to anger rather than discipline. I don't see how you can teach a child by using force. However, i was smacked twice as a child and it did me no harm - i love my mum, we're very close and she regrets it to this day. I don't agree with it as a punishment, but can understand parents who have done it once or twice out of despair and feel infinitely remorseful.

That said, I would feel i have utterly failed if i ever snapped enough to smack DS.