December 13, 2011 4:44 PM
Dangers of "Crying It Out"
I don't always agree with
Psychology Today, but this article is so right on. Anyone out there using Ezzo really needs to listen to the voices of older and wiser mothers who've said all along that by meeting your baby's needs consistently the first year, you will be be delighted with the independent, confident child that results:
Dangers of "Crying It Out"
Damaging children and their relationships for the longterm.
Letting
babies "cry it out" is an idea that has been around since at least the
1880s when the field of medicine was in a hullaballoo about germs and
transmitting infection and so took to the notion that babies should
rarely be touched (see Blum, 2002, for a great review of this time period and attitudes towards childrearing).
In the 20th
century, behaviorist John Watson, interested in making psychology a
hard science, took up the crusade against affection as president of the
American Psychological Association. He applied the mechanistic paradigm
of behaviorism to child rearing, warning about the dangers of too much
mother love. The 20th century was the time when "men of
science" were assumed to know better than mothers, grandmothers and
families about how to raise a child. Too much kindness to a baby would
result in a whiney, dependent, failed human being. Funny how "the experts" got away with this with no evidence to back it up! Instead there is evidence all around (then and now) showing the opposite to be true!
A government
pamphlet from the time recommended that "mothering meant holding the
baby quietly, in tranquility-inducing positions" and that "the mother
should stop immediately if her arms feel tired" because "the baby is
never to inconvenience the adult." Babies older than six months
"should be taught to sit silently in the crib; otherwise, he might need
to be constantly watched and entertained by the mother, a serious
waste of time." (See Blum, 2002.)
Don't these attitudes sound familiar? A parent reported to me recently that he was encouraged to let his baby cry herself to sleep so he "could get his life back."
With neuroscience, we can confirm what our ancestors took for granted---that letting babies cry is a practice that damages children and their relational capacities in many ways for the long term.
We know now that letting babies cry is a good way to make a less
intelligent, less healthy but more anxious, uncooperative and alienated
person who can pass the same or worse traits on to the next generation.
The discredited behaviorist view sees the
baby as an interloper into the life of the parents, an intrusion who
must be controlled by various means so the adults can live their lives
without too much bother. Perhaps we can excuse this attitude and
ignorance because at the time, extended families were being broken up
and new parents had to figure out how to deal with babies on their own,
an unnatural condition for humanity--we have heretofore raised
children in extended families. The parents always shared care with
multiple adult relatives.
According to a behaviorist view
completely ignorant of human development, the child 'has to be taught
to be independent.' We can confirm now that forcing "independence" on a
baby leads to greater dependence. Instead, giving babies what they need leads to greater independence later.
In anthropological reports of small-band hunter-gatherers, parents
took care of every need of babies and young children. Toddlers felt
confident enough (and so did their parents) to walk into the bush on
their own (see Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods, edited by Hewlett & Lamb, 2005).
Ignorant
behaviorists then and now encourage parents to condition the baby to
expect needs NOT to be met on demand, whether feeding or comforting.
It's assumed that the adults should 'be in charge' of the relationship.
Certainly this might foster a child that doesn't ask for as much help
and attention (withdrawing into depression and going into stasis or
even wasting away) but it is more likely to foster a whiney, unhappy,
aggressive and/or demanding child, one who has learned that one must
scream to get needs met. A deep sense of insecurity is likely to stay
with them the rest of life.
The fact is that caregivers
who habitually respond to the needs of the baby before the baby gets
distressed, preventing crying, are more likely to have children who are
independent than the opposite (Stein & Newcomb, 1994). Soothing care is best from the outset. Once patterns get established, it's much harder to change them.
Read more at Psychology Today
Posted in Babies, Mothering | Permalink
Comments
I would temper this with one caution: some -- by no means all -- babies can become over-stimulated by constantly being held, and actually NEED to be put down and allowed to fuss/cry for a few minutes in order to fall asleep. I had one of these (out of six) and it was a revelation to me when I realized that putting my child down and letting him cry was NOT "cry it out", but his way of relaxing. For reference, most babies of this type are asleep in minutes, often going from loud crying to fast asleep almost as if someone had flipped a switch. If a baby of this type cries for even seven to ten minutes, something other than tiredness is probably wrong.
Posted by: Salome Ellen | December 13, 2011 6:00 PM
Salome
Thanks for pointing that out. There is a very big difference between allowing a child to learn to self-sooth and letting a child cry it out. Learning to self-sooth is a very valuable skill and one a child needs to learn how to do. However, it is a skill and trying to teach it before a child is able to learn it is like expecting a newborn to walk (it's just not going to happen and you will end up harming you child if you try and help it learn too soon). Newborns have one basic way to communicate and that is to cry. What does ignoring the only way that child has to communicate teach that child? That being said infants have different tolerances for stimulation and an over stimulated baby is an unhappy baby. That's were parents need to learn their baby and figure out what their baby needs.
Posted by: Diane | December 14, 2011 3:57 PM
I was about to agree with Salome up there (funny coincidence, my daughter's name is Ellen!) until I saw your response, now I agree with both.
My Ellen (now 8 months) only recently learned how to sleep through the night and learned that by crying herself to sleep. I think I was actually hindering her learning to self-soothe by constantly picking her up, holding her, co-sleeping every time she'd whimper (remember, she's my second O.o). Now we have built a system of trust that I can lay her down in her crib awake, let her know I love her and say goodnight, and leave. She lets out a few whimpers but goes to sleep almost immediately.
Ah, and I hear her now...
Posted by: Courageous Grace | December 14, 2011 10:00 PM
I worked with each of my children to teach them to self-soothe. I always said I'd let them cry no longer than 5 minutes without checking on them and usually after a minute (which seemed like eternity) I was back in their room trying to comfort if they were not settling.
I did read Ezzo's book and while some was beneficial (I saw how older children responded to a set routine) some I thought was a bit extreme. But I also understand that first time parents can be so desperate for information that they will not always be able to distinguish good parenting advice from not-so-good advice.
Posted by: j dan | December 15, 2011 7:48 AM
Crying it out is so much different than teaching to self-sooth. I struggled to teach my daughter to sleep for almost 8months.it was so hard because I was exhausted,but I realized that constantly picking her up was preventing her from learning. I did a lot of patting and back rubbing, talking, singing, etc wiithout picking her up, and would gradually lengthen the time before racing in for the rescue. However, she took longer to actually need help, and the help time shortened everyday. Within a week of changing strategies, she slept. Blessed relief. There is a difference in crying uncontrollably and fussing. Fussing is a protest at a change while crying and sobbing are communication of a need.
Posted by: Emily | December 17, 2011 9:53 PM
Post a comment
