Children now spanked more often — report

Press, 20 July 1979, Page 4

Children now spanked more often — report

PA Hamilton New Zealand parents hit their children more frequently than parents did 15 years ago, a survey of 118 Waikato families has shown.

The survey was made by a psychologist married couple, Professor Jim Ritchie and Mrs Jane Ritchie, in 1977. It backs up research done in 1963.

The Ritchies have begun a campaign against physical punishment, and in particular want section 59 of the Crimes Act repealed. This law exempts parents and teachers from assault charges if they hit children using “reasonable force.”

They said that the survey among a representative sample of parents of child-

ren aged four, found that 177 mothers were praising and reasoning more with their children — a change which they attribute to families becoming smaller and consequently being subject to fewer pressures and strains.

They also found that although slightly more parents never physically punished their children, mothers generally were hitting their children more frequently. “It looks inconsistent with mothers praising more, but probably we are seeing mothers hitting more because, with the smaller family size, they are having much more interaction.

“Parents are spending more time with their children, praising more and spanking more.’’

The Ritchies, in a speech often punctuated by audience interjections of disagreement, said New Zealanders were the inheritors of an ideology of punishment.

However, their findings show that although parents still smack, they are less convinced that this is the right thing to do. In 1963, 41 per cent of respondents said that smacking was a good thing, .but by 1977 only 14 per cent felt it had an unequivocal effect. The Ritchies said that as people were losing confidence in punishment and questioning the ways they themselves were brought up, New Zealand was ready for a change jn child-rearing practices.

In 1963 they questioned only mothers in their survey, and drew up a picture of the fathers’ role from this. In 1977, they questioned both parents, and found that fathers and mothers seem to have very similar attitudes on questions of punishment. “However, the latest survey shows fathers praise less, and reason significantly less than mothers.”

Only 29 per cent of mothers felt that physical punishment was the right thing to do, whereas 49 per cent of fathers adhered to it. Professor Jim Ritchie said that 70 per cent of mothers and half the fathers felt they were doing the wrong thing when they hit their children.

Both fathers and mothers reported hitting their children more at age four than at two, a finding which the Ritchies said was inconsistent with some overseas research.

Only 15 per cent of parents said they often gave a treat for good behaviour, and 58 per cent did sometimes.

The Ritchies also reported that 63 per cent of parents were not using praise because they thought children would come to expect praise. “A widespread belief which we disagree with is that if you handle children with too much praise, you spoil them. We are not advocating other forms of punishment, but physical pun-

ishment is very bad: it perpetuates a might-is-right philosophy. “When a parent hits a child, this is saying it is all right to solve problems in that way. Physical punishment is not a learning experience because the child often learns what not to do, but not what to do.” The Ritchies said that as alternatives to physical punishment parents should reinforce good behaviour, distract children heading for bad behaviour, use verbal methods of control, and set limits on their reaction to naughty behaviour. Other forms of punishment in use included isolating the child for short periods, and removal of privilege.