«Parents are not responsible for everything»

Mrs Cina, education is associated with different things nowadays. What do you understand by this?

The aim of parenting is socialisation. It is about parents trying to give the growing child what it needs to find its way in its environment. What should they learn, what experiences should they have? The answer to this question determines the direction in which we steer the child - the parenting behaviour with which we influence their development. Parents choose different strategies.

Above all, education should enable the child to become independent.

Let's start with the big question: What should the child learn?

If we look at the question from the perspective of developmental psychology, education should above all enable the child to become independent. One day, they should be able to shape their lives according to their own ideas, as part of the society in which they live. This requires a few basic skills - life skills, so to speak.

For example?

Firstly, there is dealing with other people. It requires communication skills: can I express myself in a way that others understand me and stand up for my needs? But it is also about listening to the other person: Can I listen, take in what is being said to me and deal with it if it doesn't match my opinion?

How well we cope in life also depends on how we deal with stress and challenges. Mastering them is easier if a child has learnt to categorise difficult emotions and find an appropriate way of dealing with them. Their problem-solving skills will also be in demand. This is about recognising difficulties, reacting to them and sticking with them even if the solution is not immediately obvious.

How do we teach children this?

By providing them with a training ground and giving them experiences that help them to consolidate these life skills. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because every child is different and learns differently. The challenge for parents is to take a close look at who they have in front of them and adapt their parenting behaviour accordingly. This also includes realising that what works for others may not be practicable in their own family. This fact can unsettle parents.

It is said that insecurity characterises today's generation of parents like never before.

Of course, there is no longer the same consensus on parenting issues as there was 50 years ago, when there was a social consensus on how to deal with a child. Today, social norms are much more permeable, thanks to social and technological developments. In recent decades, the world has changed faster than ever before, and the pace has increased even more since the turn of the millennium.

The answer to the question of what a child needs in terms of life skills has become more complex. Just think of the use of digital media: what is right and important? Even research is lagging behind in such questions. If parents are unsettled, this is certainly a phenomenon of the times - but it's not the only one.

But what?

It is also in the nature of things: raising children is not easy. Or only until difficulties arise. Be it in the form of challenging developmental phases, emotional problems of the child or stresses that the child is confronted with outside the family, for example at school or in the peer group. Then things don't go optimally, and parents generally conclude that things are going wrong. In other words, they should have done things differently.

We must not attribute every problem to the parental home. There are also factors at play that parents cannot influence.

A fallacy?

I can't say it clearly enough: parents are not responsible for everything. They cannot control everything. We know that three main factors have a decisive influence on a child's development: their personal disposition, the parental home and environmental influences. And yes, studies have shown time and time again that the family system in which a child grows up plays an important role. This is its basis, and if it is not right, difficulties are more likely.

However, we must not draw the opposite conclusion from this - and attribute every problem to the parental home. Especially as, as I said, there are two other factors involved that parents cannot influence at all. Although the vast majority of mothers and fathers do a good job, the focus is very much on their failures - including the parents themselves.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at today's parents is that they raise their children according to the pleasure principle.

In my work, I have an insight into very different families. I don't come across parents who give their children few guidelines any more often than those who rely on strict rules. In both cases, there is always a conscious decision behind it.

I therefore don't have the impression that mothers and fathers parent according to the pleasure principle. We also know from studies that most of them place high demands on their parental role and sometimes almost try too hard to do it right. But there are big differences when it comes to the intensity of parental guidance.

What is the right measure?

Research shows that neither the authoritarian parenting style of the 1950s nor the laissez-faire principle that followed are conducive to child development. A child who is constantly told what to do will develop neither healthy self-esteem nor personal responsibility - nor will a child who can do whatever he or she wants without ever coming up against limits.

In both cases, children are deprived of learning experiences that are important for dealing with themselves and others. Parenting is an interplay of attachment and guidance. Attachment forms the basis: the child feels accepted and loved by its parents and knows that it can rely on them. Children need security from their parents, but they also need to be able to orientate themselves towards them. This is only possible if parents set the direction. Sometimes this also means making it clear to the child: This far and no further.

Another approach is currently very popular: relationships instead of education.

I think it's a shame when parents are led to believe that it's an either-or situation. In my view, both belong together. If there is no loving relationship, parenting defeats its purpose: it will hardly give a child anything to help them find a good way with themselves and their environment. However, a relationship alone is not enough.

Why not?

Because the path holds stumbling blocks, adversities that a young person is confronted with. As parents, it is our job to prepare the child for this, to let them experience that life does not always go according to their expectations. A child reacts to the limitation of its possibilities with frustration. But if we accompany their anger, they learn to categorise such feelings and find a way of dealing with them.

Conflicts can also strengthen the parent-child relationship.

They will try out different ways to achieve their goals and learn from interactions with others which strategies are helpful or not. As the closest caregivers, parents have a duty to give the child feedback during this learning process. Sometimes this means setting boundaries and putting up with resistance. Parents often find this difficult.

How do you explain that?

It takes energy, and resources are not inexhaustible. It's not a bad thing if parents aren't consistent across the board. It becomes problematic when they don't demand things that are really important to them for fear of conflict. If parents can't stand any resistance, they hand over the reins to the child.

This does not earn them the child's admiration, but rather constant, nerve-wracking discussions because the child is overwhelmed by this role. The result is highly tense family systems characterised by frustration and helplessness. Parenting goes beyond creating happy moments together - it is the steering in difficult times that takes strength. However, conflicts also have the potential to strengthen the parent-child relationship.

Discussions that only serve to convince the child of a contrary view are useless.

How do we accompany a child in its anger?

By mirroring his feelings and signalling understanding: «You're angry because you'd like an ice cream now. I can understand that.» What doesn't help: Insisting on understanding and making long explanations. Many parents overestimate the effect of words.

In what way?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against explanations. But these discussions, which only serve to convince the child of a contrary view - they are useless. After all, the child doesn't just happen to disagree, but because, like us, it wants to act according to its own wishes. And these do not always coincide with those of the other person. Parents have to accept this.

It is then often difficult for parents to assess whether they should negotiate or assert themselves.

The answer to this depends on the topic and the age of the child. I wouldn't negotiate bedtime with a primary school child, even if they think they're far from tired - they won't sleep in the next day.

What is really important to parents is non-negotiable.

Or homework: Whether it needs to be done is not a question, but the when and how can be debated. A child may realise that it helps them if they air their head first instead of sitting down straight after school, or that they learn better with music than in silence. The more independent children become, the more they should be allowed to make decisions. But I also say that what is really important to parents is non-negotiable.

This is where rules come into play - which ones make sense?

I advise parents to limit themselves to two or three aspects that they consider to be central. In many families, such rules relate to social interaction, hygiene and tidiness or the use of digital media.

For example, rules could be that things are tidied up on Wednesday evening because the cleaner is coming on Thursday, that smartphones do not belong at the dining table or that they are handed in after 10 pm. Rules should help us to deal with problems. We should formulate them accordingly.

The aim of sensible rules is not to impose bare restrictions. They help to structure everyday life together.

Namely?

If they come across as a ban, rules are more likely to provoke resistance. Instead of prescribing what we must refrain from doing, they should show us how we want to behave instead. Slightly older children can join in the discussion on such issues.

Perhaps there are often loud arguments in the family. You could now say: There is no shouting. It would be more helpful to use a positive formulation: We endeavour to maintain a calm tone of voice. Sensible rules are not aimed at imposing bare restrictions, they help to structure everyday life together and focus on protecting the child.

But sometimes children don't stick to agreements.

Let's assume that a primary school child does not come home at the agreed time at lunchtime. First of all, you can enquire about the reason for the delay. They may have wanted to chat a little longer on the way home.

One option may be to take this need into account and tweak the agreement: perhaps set the mealtime ten minutes later in future. It is important to make it clear to the child that they have to stick to these rules because otherwise the parents will worry. Rules act as a kind of protective fence that surrounds the child - sometimes they will simply climb over it. That's part of it.

Reinforcing behaviour through recognition is much more effective than trying to change it through criticism.

What then?

Then their actions have consequences. If the child is not on time for lunch again at lunchtime, the twenty-minute delay can be deducted from the afternoon off from school, for example. They then have to be home earlier in the evening. If this doesn't work, the logical consequence is reinforced - my child won't be able to go to play with friends. However, restrictions should always be organised in such a way that they give the child the opportunity to do well.

Explain.

For example, it would be pointless to impose a week of house arrest. The child has neither the opportunity nor the incentive to try again. It learns nothing. Sensible consequences are short, noticeable interventions that are applied selectively: If the child arrives on time for lunch again the following day, the matter is over and the consequence is cancelled. Then it is also important to let the child know: It's great that you have honoured our agreement and that I can trust you.

In general, we should try to praise children more often for what they do well instead of focussing on points of contention. Did your teenage daughter empty the dishwasher without being asked? Let's thank her for it instead of taking note of it without saying a word. Reinforcing behaviour through recognition is much more effective than trying to change it through criticism.

Critics complain that the concept of consequence is old wine in new bottles, i.e. another word for punishment.

The concept of punishment used to be commonplace in educational science and psychology. Today, punishment and related concepts are considered outdated in both disciplines. The concept of consequence, on the other hand, emerges from current research - to portray it as a substitute for punishment falls short of the mark.

Why?

Because the focus of the content is different. Punishment is about doing penance; the focus is on guilt, atonement, sanctions or prohibitions that must be obeyed purely on principle. In the child, such measures cause feelings of powerlessness, guilt and often also revenge.

Consequences, on the other hand, are not about restoring justice or a position of power, they are aimed at a learning process: we let the children experience the consequences of their actions so that they gradually learn to take responsibility for them. If a child dawdles when brushing their teeth, doesn't get ready for bed and lets so much time pass, a shortened bedtime story is not a punishment, but a consequence of the fact that there isn't enough time for everything.

And yet it is based on an imbalance of power: you want to persuade the child to behave in a way that you yourself consider desirable.

Absolutely correct - but that is education. This brings us back to the initial question: What should our children learn at home for life? Many of the skills that all parents probably want their children to learn cannot be learnt on their own. And they need not only love, but also guidance from their parents.