Most parents want to be the person their child turns to when something goes wrong, but whether this happens depends less on what you offer in a moment, and more on what your child has learned to expect over time.
Before my work as a provisional psychologist, I spent four years in residential youth work, supporting young people from as young as four years old to those preparing to graduate from high school. Although they came from a diverse set of backgrounds, the nature of residential youth work meant that, unfortunately, a large proportion of the young people I supported had experienced trauma. Many had developed coping mechanisms to protect themselves from further harm, which helped them feel safer but made it difficult to trust others and form secure attachments.
I learned early on that simply telling a young person I was present and available to support them was not enough to build trust. Many of these young people had experienced adults whose actions did not match their words. As a result, they had learned to judge whether someone was trustworthy by how that person responded to them, rather than by what they said.
Attachment researchers describe these learned expectations as internal working models. They develop through repeated experiences with caregivers, shape whether seeking help feels safe or worthwhile, and can change as new experiences accumulate (Bretherton and Munholland, 2008).
Building trust required time and consistent interactions. Each interaction either confirmed what these young people expected from adults or gave them reason to expect something different. As they became familiar with my behaviour and responses, and saw that my actions matched my words, they gradually began to lower their guard. Only then did they feel safe enough to be vulnerable with me and allow me to become a source of emotional support.
Young people who have experienced trauma often make these processes easier to see, but the same processes apply to every child. Whether your child turns to you depends largely on what your responses have taught them to expect. Listed below are some of the key lessons I learned from the young people I worked with.
- Make it safe for your child to admit their mistakes
Many of the young people I supported had learned to expect harsh or unpredictable reactions when they made a mistake, so they watched closely how I responded. When my response felt fair and proportionate, they were more likely to be honest with me the next time. When it felt like an overreaction or became about who they were rather than what they had done, they tended to avoid opening up to me.
Studies of parents and adolescents point to a similar pattern. When young people admit to a mistake, they are likely to feel more comfortable being honest in the future when criticism focuses on what they did, instead of who they are, and this approach is also better at changing the behaviour over time (Rote and Arends, 2026). Similarly, children are more likely to keep telling their parents what is going on in their lives, including when things go wrong, when parents set consistent boundaries and expectations, and less likely when parents respond with rejection (Goldstein et al., 2023).
Together, these findings suggest that holding your child to clear expectations does not stop them opening up. What makes the difference is whether criticism stays focused on what they did, and whether they feel rejected for being honest. This matched my experience in youth work, where young people could accept being held accountable as long as they did not feel judged as a person. When your child admits a mistake, start by acknowledging that they chose to tell you, then talk about what they did and its effects without making it about their character.
- Acknowledge your child’s feelings, even when you cannot fix the problem
I often supported young people who were dealing with feelings I could not fully understand and problems I could not solve. What helped most was simply letting them know their feelings made sense and that I was there for them.
The research on this is more nuanced than simply “validation is good”. Dismissive responses to a child’s emotions are more closely linked with anxiety and depression than supportive responses are with protecting against them (Brumariu et al., 2025), suggesting that avoiding dismissal may matter more than finding the ideal words of comfort. In other words, you do not need to say exactly the right thing, as long as you avoid brushing your child’s feelings aside.
Not all minimising is harmful either. Minimising that devalues a young person’s feelings, such as telling them they are overreacting, predicted poorer social and emotional wellbeing, while minimising that plays down how serious a situation is, such as reassuring them that a setback is not as permanent as it may feel, predicted better social and emotional wellbeing (Shi et al., 2024). Put simply, it can help to make a problem feel smaller, as long as your child is not made to feel wrong for being upset about it.
When you are unsure what to say, acknowledging your child’s feelings is a safe place to start, because what matters most is that they do not feel brushed aside. Reassurance can then help, as long as it focuses on the situation, such as “We can work this out together” or “This will get easier”, rather than on the feeling, such as “There’s no need to be upset” or “Don’t worry about it”. If you realise afterwards that you brushed a feeling aside, returning to it later and acknowledging it can still help.
- Influence your child’s behaviour without using guilt or withdrawing affection
In residential care, many young people had experienced adults whose affection seemed to depend on how they behaved, so they were quick to notice any sign that my care might be conditional. When warmth was withdrawn after they did something wrong, or guilt was used to get them to comply, they often became more guarded rather than more cooperative.
Barber (1996) describes these tactics as psychological control, which involves manipulating a child’s thoughts and feelings, such as through guilt or withdrawing affection. He contrasts this with setting clear rules and expectations, and the two tend to have quite different effects. Psychological control is consistently linked with depression and other emotional difficulties in young people (Barber, 1996), while clear rules and expectations are linked with fewer behaviour problems (Pinquart, 2017). In other words, it is possible to set firm limits without the emotional cost that comes with guilt or withdrawing affection.
How limits are set also matters. Parenting that supports a child’s autonomy, such as explaining the reasons behind a rule and taking their point of view into account, is associated with better wellbeing across cultures and age groups (Bradshaw et al., 2025). Psychological control, on the other hand, predicts young people telling their parents less about their personal lives, largely because they feel less supported (Song and Smetana, 2024). A child who feels respected when limits are set is likely to find it easier to keep coming to you, even when they disagree with the rule.
In practice, this means keeping requests focused on the behaviour and the reason for it. “I need you home by nine so I know you are safe” explains why the rule matters, while “If you cared about how I feel, you would be home on time” relies on guilt to get the same result. When your child pushes back, listening to their view and explaining your reasoning keeps the conversation about the limit itself, instead of about whether you are disappointed in them.
- Stay warm during disagreements and repair the relationship afterwards
Arguments test a young person’s expectations more directly than almost anything else. For young people who had experienced inconsistent care, what happened after a conflict often mattered more than the conflict itself. When I returned the next day, treated them the same way I normally would and acknowledged what had happened without reopening the argument, they were more willing to approach me afterwards than when the conflict was simply avoided.
Conflict is a normal part of adolescence and is one of the ways parents and young people renegotiate their relationship as the young person becomes more independent (Branje, 2018). Parents and adolescents who can move between frustration and warmth during a disagreement tend to adapt better (Branje, 2018), and mothers and adolescents who recovered more readily after a conflict discussion grew closer over time (Li et al., 2026). Put simply, arguing with your child is unlikely to damage your relationship on its own, but conflict that is left unresolved or followed by lasting coldness can.
One way conflict is left unresolved is through withdrawal. Adolescents who dealt with conflict only by withdrawing showed a stronger link between frequent conflict and behaviour problems (Branje et al., 2009). In other words, letting an argument blow over without ever talking about it is not the same as resolving it.
Staying calm enough to reconnect depends partly on the parent. Parents who manage their own emotions well tend to respond more supportively (Edler and Valentino, 2024), which may make it easier to stay warm when a disagreement becomes heated. This means that taking a moment to calm yourself before responding is part of supporting your child.
Each repaired conflict gives a young person evidence that disagreement does not lead to rejection, which over time can change what they expect from the relationship (Bretherton and Munholland, 2008). The more often disagreements are followed by repair, the safer your child is likely to feel raising difficult things with you.
Consistency over perfection
Each of these four strategies comes back to the same idea. Whether your child admits a mistake, shares a difficult feeling, pushes against a limit or argues with you, your response teaches them what to expect the next time. None of this requires getting every interaction right. The young people I worked with were far more affected by the overall pattern of how I responded than by any single conversation, and the same is true for children at home. As long as you are doing your best to create consistent and predictable responses, your child will benefit from knowing what to expect from you and that they can rely on you.
References
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x
Bradshaw, E. L., Duineveld, J. J., Conigrave, J. H., Steward, B. A., Ferber, K. A., Joussemet, M., Parker, P. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2025). Disentangling autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting: A meta-analysis of self-determination theory’s dual process model across cultures. American Psychologist, 80(6), 879–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001389
Branje, S. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278
Branje, S. J. T., van Doorn, M., van der Valk, I., & Meeus, W. (2009). Parent–adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution types, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.004
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). Guilford Press.
Brumariu, L. E., Nair, T. K., Waslin, S. M., Rodrigues, G. A., Moore, M. T., & Kerns, K. A. (2025). Parental emotion socialization and internalizing problems in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457942510059X
Edler, K., & Valentino, K. (2024). Parental self-regulation and engagement in emotion socialization: A systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 150(2), 154–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000423
Goldstein, S. E., Docherty, M., Boxer, P., Bushman, B. J., Huesmann, L. R., O’Brien, M., Anderson, C., Gentile, D. A., & Dubow, E. F. (2023). Developmental changes in the relation between youth disclosure and parenting behavior: A cohort-sequential analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(10), 2095–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01823-5
Li, X., Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2026). From friction to flow: Dyadic affective flexibility during and after conflicts predicts trajectories of mother–adolescent relationships. Developmental Psychology, 62(5), 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001939
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
Rote, W. M., & Arends, M. (2026). Parental responses to youth disclosure: How guilt induction shapes future communication and actions. Journal of Adolescence, 98(7), 2491–2502. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.70230
Shi, Z., Fan, L., & Wang, Q. (2024). Scrutinizing parental minimization reactions to adolescents’ negative emotions through the lens of Chinese culture. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34(2), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12918
Song, G., & Smetana, J. G. (2024). Longitudinal associations among psychological control, positive and negative interactions, and adolescents’ domain-specific disclosure to parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(11), 2642–2653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02050-2
Joe Carter
Provisional Psychologist