«Pampering is a kind of addiction»
Mr Frick, how do you like the term helicopter parents?
Not bad at all, actually. It aptly describes how parents circle over their children in order to monitor them. However, the term is mainly used today to accuse parents. I think that's wrong. Parents should not be made to feel guilty, because the vast majority of them want to do well. I therefore prefer to speak of spoiling. In my opinion, this term goes deeper and further.
In what way?
Pampering is about a basic attitude characterised by overprotectiveness or overanxiety: not trusting the child with much and therefore taking many things off their hands that they could do themselves.
Zurich University of Teacher Education. Frick also offers seminars and workshops for schools as well as courses and lectures for parents. Frick lives and works in Uerikon on Lake Zurich.
You describe pampering as a drug in your book. Why is that?
If children are spoilt, they will continue to demand this behaviour in the future. Driving a child to school once is not a problem. But the next day, the child will ask: «Mummy, I'm late, will you drive me again?» If you give in, the child will get used to it. This habituation is a kind of addiction.
What are the consequences of pampering?
It leads to children becoming discouraged and unfit for life. A spoilt child believes that it can do nothing, that it is lost without parents. Such children are also used to the world revolving around them. This makes it difficult for them to adapt. At school, for example, they can't cope with poor grades or the fact that you play something different to what they want in gymnastics.
Are there late effects into adulthood?
In my book, I make a digression about top managers. For the former head of Novartis, Daniel Vasella, it was completely normal that he should receive around CHF 71 million in severance pay - spread over six years. When the public did not appreciate this, he left the country in a huff for a few years. This attitude of entitlement is akin to being spoilt. I don't know whether Vasella was a spoilt child. But spoiling can result in a severe deformation of the psychological structure that leaves a lifelong mark.
You write that pampering is a subtle form of child abuse. Aren't you going a bit far with that?
I am often asked this question. By definition, child abuse is any violent or unnecessarily restrictive behaviour towards or neglect of a child. This includes not only physical, but also psychological injuries. And such injuries can be caused by massive spoiling. Developmental impairments are also possible consequences.
Children need attachment, reliability, helpfulness and care. Parents should not spoil children, but expect something of them.
What's so bad about a gentle, caring upbringing?
Nothing at all. The question is a different one, namely: What does a child need? Children need attachment, reliability, helpfulness and care. However, in order to develop, a child should also be given other things along the way: They need to learn to take responsibility and have confidence in themselves.
How do you educate without spoiling?
I don't want to go back to an authoritarian upbringing, but towards an authoritative one. The important thing is that we should expect something from children. If I make a child realise that they are strong and can do something, that I have confidence in them, then that gives them self-confidence. Psychologists also talk about self-efficacy.
It is never too late to correct spoiling, it just becomes more difficult.
How do you do that?
An example: A child complains that he or she is being bullied by another pupil at school. Instead of going straight in and calling the pupil to account, parents should clarify whether the child can solve the problem themselves. Sometimes it's enough to say: «Talk to him.» But maybe they need a little more help. If the child has solved the problem themselves, you can say: «You did a great job.» This gives them self-confidence.
When is it too late to correct overindulgence?
It's never too late, it just gets more difficult. It makes sense to talk to other parents. And if the level of suffering is high: get help, for example with parent counselling. There's nothing to be ashamed of. I was at the dentist the other day and it wouldn't have occurred to me to fix the hole myself.
How do parents recognise whether their behaviour is caring or overprotective, protective or overprotective?
Parents can learn about child development and find out what they can expect from their child. In workshops, I show tables showing at what age children can help out in the household and where. Parents often react with astonishment. «Aha, my child could already clear the dishes or put the clothes in the laundry bag.» In society, a good mother is someone who is on the child's side. I say: a good mum is not on the child's side, but at their side. That's a big difference.
You have to explain that.
An example: The child tells the teacher that they have to do an impossible amount of maths homework at school the next day. If a mother is on the child's side, the mother will call the teacher and ask her: «Mrs A, that's far too much, isn't it?» The child learns: I'm right. But if the mum is on the child's side, she asks the teacher: «My child said ..., can that be right?» If the teacher replies that it's a weekly plan and that the maths homework has to be done by Friday, the child feels like it's being taken seriously, but it also learns that the «truth» is usually complex.
Let's take another example: A ten-year-old wants a small dog with all his heart. How do parents find out whether they should fulfil this wish?
It's always great that the child initiates the conversation. Now parents should ask questions and take the opportunity to explain what it means to have a dog. That you have to take the dog out every day, even when it's snowing or raining, and that it can be a hassle. The child should feel taken seriously, even if you don't end up buying the dog.
Parents once asked me exactly the same question in my practice. I advised them to let the whole thing settle for the time being - in other words, neither to dismiss the issue nor to buy the dog straight away. Do you know what happened? The dog was no longer an issue and when the parents enquired, the son said: «I don't need a dog any more, I have a girlfriend now.»
