Often, “otherwise I won’t love you” acts as a parental argument. That is, the child is to blame for the fact that you do not want to love him … such a pretty emotional blackmail — you, baby, are fully responsible for your mother’s feelings, but your mother is not here.
For example, “If you don’t collect toys for yourself, then I won’t love you!” or “If you don’t obey me on the street, I won’t love you!” Of course, toys must be collected and mom must be obeyed too, but how legitimate is it to oppose parental love and scattered toys? This agreement will not work also because mom (dad) will definitely break it himself, since deep down everyone clearly understands that because of the scattered toys he will not stop loving his child, and the words escaped in a fit of temper. Thus, an adult, starting to negotiate, is not going to fulfill his obligations; the child quickly understands this and also makes no effort to participate in such a “contract”.
Another example. “If you don’t eat porridge, you won’t see cartoons today!” or “If you are capricious in the kindergarten, then you won’t go to visit Seryozhka today!” How are condition and consequence related in such an agreement? Such an arrangement can be effective, especially since parents can easily keep their end of the contract. However, efficiency will not be based at all on the awareness of the need to eat porridge or peace in the garden, but on the fear of losing cartoons or going to visit.