Oliver James is a psychologist in the UK, who is very child-centred in
his approach. He's just started a new column with The Guardian
newspaper, and I thought this small article, posted earlier in another
group I'm in, would be of some use to lactnetters. Whilst it's about
sleep practices, I found the small quote on breastfeeding rates reducing
in scheduling parents illuminating. I also like that it normalises both
breastfeeding and child led - talking about increased crying in those
not held (as opposed to reduced crying in those held) and a fall in
breastfeeding rates in schedulers, as opposed to an increase in
breastfeeding duration amongst 'huggers'.
Morgan Gallagher
- - -
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/dec/13/parenting-baby-sleep-routine>
When a baby is small, particularly if it's the first one, parents tend
to verge on the doctrinaire regarding the best parenting approach,
falling into two camps: strict routine (the schedulers) or infant-led
(the huggers).
Holidaying friends with conflicting methods risk lifelong schism, yet
hardly anyone bases their view on science. So what do the studies show?
The most definitive was done recently by British and Danish
psychologists. They identified a sample of pregnant London mothers who
intended to follow a parent-led, scheduled routine. For example, many
hoped to get the baby into a cot as soon as possible, feeding and
sleeping to a timetable, and planning to delay responses to crying, to
teach self-soothing.
By contrast, another sample was also studied, who adopted the hugger
approach. They would be keeping the baby in the bed rather than a cot,
and feeding on demand. There was also a sample of Copenhagen mothers who
fell between these two nurturing plans. The samples were followed until
three months of age. Compared with the hugger mothers, the schedulers
spent half as much time holding their babies and were four times less
likely to make contact with it when fussing or crying. Twice as many
schedulers had given up breastfeeding when the baby reached three months
of age (85% v 37%). The results for the Copenhagen mothers generally
fell between the two, though veering towards the huggers.
The consequences of this differing care were considerable. At all three
ages when studied (10 days, five weeks and three months), the babies
with scheduler mothers spent 50% more time fussing or crying. For
example, at five weeks, the scheduler babies fussed/cried for 121
minutes of the 24 hours, compared with 82 minutes for the hugger babies.
If you take the view that persistent fussing and crying are undesirable
for a baby - because they are signs of distress - then this is evidence
that the scheduler regime is bad for a baby's wellbeing. If the method
really does cause a 50% greater prevalence of fussing and crying in
three-month-olds, innumerable other studies suggest that such distress
often presages emotional insecurity, hyperactivity and conduct disorders
in later childhood.
However, if scheduling was bad news for the babies, it was not all bad
for their mothers. At three months (although not before that age),
scheduler babies were more likely to sleep for five or more hours a
night without waking or crying - significantly longer than among the
huggers. However, this scheduling benefit may have been illusory. If the
scheduler babies were sleeping in cots in another room, how confident
could their mothers be that their babies had not woken up? Nearly all
the hugger babies (84%) were in bed with their mothers and waking or
crying would rarely be missed. The researchers concluded that the
scheduled babies were probably waking more than their mothers realised,
casting doubt on the finding.
It is pathetic that this is the only serious study of the question. We
also need to know what the consequences of different regimes are in
later life. For there is good evidence that as the child gets older,
scheduling is increasingly effective for creating good sleep. So it may
be helpful to encourage such "self-regulation" when the child is one or
two, not at all good to do so at three months. But it is also possible
that children who keep getting into the parental bed until middle
childhood are ultimately more secure and creative. Why is this issue not
at the top of the psychology profession's research agenda?
• Hugger v Scheduler study: St James-Roberts, I et al, 2006, Pediatrics,
117(6), pp e1146-55. More Oliver James at selfishcapitalist.com
<http://www.selfishcapitalist.com>
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1852 - Release Date: 12/16/2008 6:11 PM
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
