266 An exploration of the impact of the ‘Smacking Ban’ on attitudes towards, beliefs about, and use of smacking in Scotland

Aims Physical punishment of children by their caregivers constitutes a significant public health concern for Scottish children. A substantial body of research evidence links smacking to detrimental outcomes including: pain, risk of injury, childhood and adulthood anxiety and depressive symptoms, reduced cognitive performance, increased risk of adult suicidality, child conduct problems, high levels of child emotional and behavioural difficulties, low child life satisfaction, antisocial and criminal behaviour, substance misuse, and increased aggression. Despite this, it remains common with a prevalence of 16-56% in Scottish families. The Children (Equal Protection From Assault) (Scotland) Bill (2019) aimed to decrease the physical punishment of children by parents in Scotland by: • promoting negative attitudes towards smacking • Educating parents as to the likely outcomes associated with the use of physical punishment • Educating parents with regard to alternative means of discipline This study addressed whether this approach was likely to be effective in reducing the incidence of smacking in Scotland. Methods This study applied thematic analysis to social media comments posted in reaction to coverage of the Bill on an online news site. This study analysed 1254 comments posted by 193 participants on 40 articles over a two year period (4/11/16-31/12/18). Comments were approached initially within four main themes of analysis: smacking and identity; smacking and ideology; smacking in social context; smacking and authority. Analysis was carried out on a sample of 500 comments, with information relevant to these themes coded. This process enabled the division of initial themes into 34 sub-themes, with the addition of emergent meaning under new codes. All comments were then re-analysed and coded as per these 34 themes. Results The following conclusions were drawn from analysis: Those who favour smacking hold beliefs that smacking is beneficial and harmless. These tend to be based on personal experience over objective evidence. Those who favour smacking feel it is superior or complementary to other forms of discipline, and do not lack knowledge or competence in alternative disciplinary methods. Attitudes towards smacking are anchored in ideological networks which are drawn upon to defend/condemn smacking. Those networks lend resilience to beliefs about smacking, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Evidence alone is therefore insufficient to influence beliefs. Attitudes towards smacking are held and understood as components of political and religious identities, giving them an emotional and social dimension. This link to identity generates prejudice against those who are pro-smacking, and promotes ‘group-think’ that shields these attitudes from opposing influence. Those who favoured smacking tended to view the state and legislature as lacking in authority and credibility with regards to parenting techniques. Conclusion This study concluded that those who favour smacking would be unlikely to change their attitudes or behaviours in response to either the Bill or the planned accompanying educational campaign. While the Bill may therefore be desirable for moral or social reasons, it does not alone constitute a solution to the practical public health issue of physical punishment in Scottish families.