Severity of physical punishment
3.1 Introduction
The second section of the survey asked people about what severity of physical punishment they found acceptable. The respondent was asked 'Do you think these are acceptable levels of physical punishment for a child? Please say "yes" or "no" for each punishment read out.' Respondents were also given the choice to say they don't know or prefer not to answer.
Q4a "A smack that leaves no mark on the child's skin?"
Q4b " Where it leaves a red mark that lasts a few days?"
Q4c "Where it leaves a bruise that lasts a few days?"
Q4d "Where the punishment leaves marks and bruises that last for more than a few days but doesn't cause a permanent injury?"
Q4e "Where the punishment causes an injury that needs medical attention?"[31]
The questions were modelled on an English study (Protecting Children, Supporting Parents, 1998) that formed part of a consultation document for the English government on the physical punishment of children. The use of section 59 as a defence largely centres around whether a judge or jury decides the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Circumstances vary considerably; therefore rather than list multiple scenarios of physically disciplining children for the respondents to reply to, the questions aimed to find out what the public perceived as reasonable force in terms of the severity of the physical punishment.
3.2 Findings
The results clearly show that any physical discipline of children that causes marking, bruising, or injury to a child is not considered acceptable. The total percentages of people who agreed with each statement are shown in Figure 3.1.
Analysis of responses to the following statement:
"A smack
that leaves no mark on the child's skin?"
Seventy-five percent of respondents thought that a smack that left no mark was acceptable. In comparison slightly more agreed (80%) that smacking with an open hand should be legally allowable. The drop in agreement may be accounted for by the different emphases of these questions. More agreed physical discipline should be legally allowable, whereas the emphasis on injury in the question, A smack that leaves no mark on the child's skin, may have deterred some people from agreeing.
Women (76% agreed) and men (75% agreed) responded similarly to this question. Those in the NZ European/Other ethnic grouping were much more likely[32] to find a smack that leaves no mark acceptable than either Maori or Pacific peoples.
In regards to parental status, previous parents were more likely[33] to agree that smacking that leaves no mark is an acceptable level of punishment than current parents.[34]
Figure 3.4 illustrates the response to the statement by age groups. The results show the youngest age group is less likely to agree[35] than all the other age groups, with the exception of the 30-39 year olds, where the statistical significance is at the 95% confidence level.
The analysis showed that respondents in households in the Agricultural and Fishery Workers category had the highest percentage of acceptance (87%). Those in the Service and Sale workers category had the lowest score (66%). It is interesting to note that those in the Professionals households have the same response as those respondents from Elementary Occupations households (72%). These results mirror the pattern for the question regarding the use of objects such as wooden spoons for physically disciplining children. This response reinforces the proposition that there are no discernible patterns among occupational categories that have NZSEI scores that are high or low. This suggests that education and income levels do not influence attitudes towards the physical discipline of children.
Analysis of responses to the following statements:
" Where it leaves a red mark that lasts a few days?"
"Where it leaves a bruise that lasts a few days?"
"Where the punishment leaves marks and bruises that last for more than a few days but doesn't cause a permanent injury?"
"Where the punishment causes an injury that needs medical attention?"
The response to all of these statements was a resounding 'no', indicating that these levels of physical punishment are unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders. Notably less than 1% of people opted for the don't know or prefer not to answer options. As would be expected, the low level of acceptance decreased with the severity of injury. Six percent indicated that a red mark that lasts a few days was acceptable, compared with 0.1% who thought that physical punishment that resulted in medical attention being required was acceptable. Therefore, no demographic analysis was undertaken.
3.3 Summary
This series of questions aimed to find out the public's attitudes towards the severity of physical punishment of children. The results clearly indicate that only smacking that leaves
no mark is acceptable to the majority of people (75%). Ninety-four percent of people thought smacking that leaves a red mark that lasts a few days was unacceptable. Less than 1% of people thought that physical punishment that left bruises or required medical attention was an acceptable form of physical punishment for a child.
Demographic analyses of the question on smacking that leaves no mark showed:
- Women and men responded similarly to this question.
- Those in the NZ European/Other ethnic grouping (79%) were significantly[36] more likely to find this an acceptable level of punishment than Maori (61%) or Pacific peoples (51%).
- Respondents who had previously parented children were significantly[37] more likely to view this as an acceptable form of physical discipline than those that were currently parenting.
- Those in the 18-29 age group were less likely than the 30-39 year olds, and less likely[38] than those 40 and above to find smacking that leaves no mark acceptable.
- There were no differences in response according to a respondent's socio-economic status.
Footnotes
31 The five statements are identified in the graphs as No Mark for Q4a; Red Mark for Q4b; Bruise for Q4c; No Perm. for Q4d; and Med. Attn for 4Qe.
32 (p<0.01)
33 (p<0.01)
34 There was no statistically significant difference between previous parents and those who had never parented.
35 (p<0.01)
36 (p<0.01)
37 (p<0.01)
38 (p<0.01)
