Newborns Don't Bond Immediately with their Mothers
The reality is, though, that babies don't have much of a clue what's going on right after birth. Although mother (and father) are likely to very quickly form close attachments to their offspring, from the baby's perspective it takes longer, much longer.
In fact it usually takes infants until they're about 2 or 3 months old before they show a strong preference for a particular caregiver. While a baby is primed for social interaction soon after birth, its abilities are pretty limited. Here's the timeline (from Simpson, 1999):
- After 16 hours babies prefer the sound of human language to other noises (at least they start making rhythmic body movements which psychologists assume means they're excited). But they don't show any preference for particular voices.
- After 2 days babies can tell the difference between their mothers' faces and that of a stranger, but they still appear to show no preference.
- After 3 days babies clearly prefer human voices, especially their mother's.
- After 3-5 weeks babies become especially interested in faces, and particularly in their mother's eyes.
Overall, though, the preference for the mother (or other caregiver) is usually fairly weak at first. Real communication from the baby's perspective probably doesn't begin until they're about 3 or 4 months old. At around that time they start to initiate social contact with their mothers. Only between about 3 and 7 months of age do babies start to show a strong preference for members of their own family.
Roots of the misconception
This misconception that babies become attached to their mothers very quickly may stem from the study of other animals. Famously ducks and geese will 'imprint on' and follow around the first thing they see after they hatch. Konrad Lorenz, a pioneer in ethology (animal psychology) found that newly born geese would imprint on him, then try to follow him everywhere, as though he were their mother.
Babies are much more fickle and probably wouldn't follow you anywhere, even if they could.
...this so-called critical period turns out not to be that critical at all.The misconception might also stem from a confusion with research from the 1970s that found there was a critical 'sensitive period' shortly after birth that was particularly important for bonding between mother and baby. Again, this research refers to the mother's bonding with the baby and not vica versa. Also, as later researchers have pointed out, this so-called critical period turns out not to be that critical at all.
» Find out if any other mind-myths catch you out.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
[Image credit: Tub Gurnard]
Reference
Simpson, J. A. (2002). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary context. In: J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver, (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. The Guilford Press.
Labels: Mind-Myths
7 comments
Fascinating. Now how about older children, who CAN respond? I have two adopted children, and watched carefully for signs of bonding. The differences between the two were significant, I think because they were different ages at adoption and had different background experiences. But they also had very different personalities from birth.
All quite true.
I have been heavily involved from birth throughout with our three children and in the first days and weeks, the baby just needs to be warm and comfortable and it is happy. There is no apparent bonding or preference with either parent.
Perhaps another observation that supports this is the way newborns tend to get passed around to everyone and anyone who "wants a hold" - this doesn't seem to bother them either.
"Again, this research refers to the mother's bonding with the baby and not vica versa. Also, as later researchers have pointed out, this so-called critical period turns out not to be that critical at all. "
A critical point. The failure for the mother to bond with the baby can be hugely important later on, but as you point out, this has (or perhaps little?) nothing to do with the baby bonding with the parent(s).
linguistics researchers claim that newly delivered babies recognize their mothers' voices as shown by their turning towards the mother when she speaks. Since babies hear in the womb, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't recognize their mothers' --and fathers' or others'-- voices. Also,one of my babies cried for hours when I left him with a babysitter when he was four weeks old, so I think 3 months is late for bonding. I would want further verification.
Hotoldlady, as I say above there is an early preference for the primary caregiver - that's the research you're referring to - but it is weak until about 3 months.
too bad they didn't test my son.
I couldn't be more than a foot away before he'd start crying. No one else could calm him down.
He was very premature, but this started when he was 2 weeks old (equivalent of 29 weeks gestational age).
I'm a dad of two girls separated by two boys. My oldest girl bonded with me very quickly--within days (she also displayed a stubborn streak that has remained unrelenting to her recent twentieth birthday.) It really bothered my wife, though she hid it from me.
My sons didn't bond to either of us. My youngest became a mommy's girl. It seemed fast, but likely was on a normal schedule.