Mama's love makes babies grow up less stressed: study

[demoleft]

Source: afp

AFP - Babies lavished with motherly affection are less likely to become anxious and stressed adults, according to an unusual study released Tuesday.
...
To get a more objective take on whether mommy's warmth inoculates against grownup unease, researchers led by Joanna Maselko followed up on a study done in the early 1960s in the US state of Rhode Island.
...
"We found that objectively observed high levels of affection between mothers and their eight-month infants are associated with fewer symptoms of distress 30 years later," the researchers reported in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

The deferred, inter-generational link between caring and coolheadedness held true across different social classes -- rich or poor, it didn't seem to matter.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20100727-mamas-love-makes-babies-grow-less-stressed-study-0

---

from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Background Long-standing theory suggests that quality of the mother's (or primary caregiver's) interaction with a child is a key determinant of the child's subsequent resilience or vulnerability and has implications for health in adulthood. However, there is a dearth of longitudinal data with both objective assessments of nurturing behaviour during infancy and sustained follow-up ascertaining the quality of adult functioning.

Methods We used data from the Providence, Rhode Island birth cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project (mean age 34 at follow-up, final N=482) to conduct a prospective study of the association between objectively measured affective quality of the mother–infant interaction and adult mental health. Infant–mother interaction quality was rated by an observer when infants were 8 months old, and adult emotional functioning was assessed from the Symptom Checklist-90, capturing both specific and general types of distress.

Results High levels of maternal affection at 8 months were associated with significantly lower levels of distress in adult offspring (1/2 standard deviation; b=−4.76, se=1.7, p<0.01). The strongest association was with the anxiety subscale. Mother's affection did not seem to be on the pathway between lower parental SES and offspring distress.

Conclusion These findings suggest that early nurturing and warmth have long-lasting positive effects on mental health well into adulthood.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2010/07/07/jech.2009.097873.short?q=w_jech_ahead_tab

[Kurovski]

1. Oh, well THAT fucking explains it.

My sour, snappish, panicky demeanor, that is.

[happygoluckytoyou]

9. i got your study right here!!! HERE ARE A FEW MORE STUDIES-----> ---->

people who eat good food are more healthy

people with more friends are happier

heavy rocks, when thrown into water, sink to the bottom

oil and water don't mix

DO WE REALLY NEED ALL OF THESE STUDIES?
was this actually a question.... SOMEONE WAS WALKING ALONG THE RIVER ONE DAY AND ASKED HIMSELF
"I WONDER IF A MOM'S LOVE IS A GOOD THING"


HEY I GOT A IDEAR.... LET'S CHECK A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND SEE

[nolabear]

16. Actually it might help a great deal.

This is, in fact, old news, but only to those of us who pay attention and have access to it. If doctors who see people from all walks of life, who don't habitually read or who have lives that make it hard to lavish their children with love and positive interactions, can impress this on some people who come to see them, or if you and I take such a study and extrapolate from it and assume that even grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, neighbors, etc. can make some difference in helping parents and children bond in this way, we might end up with fewer people who act out their fears and anxieties on those around them, be they the guy next door or the leader of a country. Not the worst train to board, opinion-wise.

[willing dwarf]

2. J.K. Rowling was right!!

This story proves a central point in the Harry Potter books-- Harry received special magical protection on account of his mother's love for him. Her love sealed him with some sort of charm that made him impervious to the assault of Voldemort. Good for you Ms. Rowling! I always knew you hit the nail on the head with that idea!

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Thanks Mom!

[MattSh]

4. Mammas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Republicans...

Show them love and affection...please!!!

The future of American depends on it!!!

Maybe someone needs to study that correlation.

[Blandocyte]

5. Did they control for mothers' anxiety/warmth as covariants?

Maybe all they found was that anxiety and peevishness are inherited, and maybe both are correlated with low levels of interpersonal warmth. But what would I know? I'm a cold, peevish, anxious bastard.

[Demeter]

7. To eliminate genetics, they would have to study adoptive families

It is a very good point. So much of personality is inherited, in my experience, watching my children exhibit traits from long-dead grandparents and other ancestors....

Still, it cannot hurt to have a strong emotional bond between parent and child--if only because it makes for a strong family. I've seen it between fathers and children, too. Alas that my children were not so lucky...

[Joe Bacon]

6. Ah, that explains Newt!

:rofl:

[lunatica]

8. It's a good thing they spent time on this study!

Otherwise we'd never know this important stuff.

[demoleft]

11. it reverses a common belief according to which excessive maternal care weakens the child...

...when confronting with life as a grown up.
it links the maternal love and attitude with the social behavior of the adult in his relationship with society.

so the research makes sense.

[SkyDaddy7]

12. I have an idiot in my family...

who thinks if a mother is to caring and loving to her son it will make him gay! YES, watches FOX "News" 24/7 his favorite person is Glenn Beck and he votes Republican!

...And YES, he lives in the deep south like myself and the rest of my family. The STUPID down here really does cause me physical pain!

[Egnever]

15. Bingo!

I'm sick to death of hearing how I must be "spoiling" my baby because I hold him a lot and meet his needs. I'm developing a relationship where he knows from early on that he can depend on me. It amazes me how people too often think their baby needs to learn to be independent when they can't even sit up or move around at will. Strange. No wonder so many adults in our culture are messed up.

[Igel]

20. Perhaps.

The researchers will have fairly specific definitions for their words. Yours may not match theirs, in which case the results don't support you. They may also have a different age range in mind: What's appropriate for a 1-year-old baby is often inappropriate for a 2- or 3-year-old toddler.

I've seen claims of 'spoiling' that were just normal, prudent care and seen reasonable care called "child abuse." I've seen claims of 'affection' that covered up what could only be called spoiling or pampering. I've also seen cases where 'good parenting' was the term applied to basically reaming out the kid in public with harshly and cruelling demeaning words, corporal punishment that, if applied to an adult, would easily lead to charges of aggravated assault and battery.

Most of these words lack a lot of content and mean either "I don't like what you're doing, it's too tough," "I don't like what you're doing, you're teaching the kid to be selfish and helpless" or even "That's what I'd do, so that's good parenting."

My wife tries to make sure our son knows he can depend on her. There's a fine line between that and making him dependent on her. The first is good; the second, bad. However, the second makes sure that the kid continues to meet the mother's emotional needs. It's been said that parenting is one job in which you actively pursue the goal of becoming unnecessary.

[Submariner]

10. Oh...I thought if you beat the fuck out of the kid submission would be just around the corner

Thank goodness for DU and another teachable moment.

"Now son, put down the knife, Daddy has some splainin' to do."

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Mother's affection?

What about parental affection? Father's affection?

I do see the parenthetical statement "(or primary caregiver's)".

As a single father who has always been the main source of affection for my children I guess I am overly sensitive to these things. I think that society (researchers included) tends to continue to give fathers a pass on being the source of affection and love. Hell, it is the 21st century and we still see commercials that show "mom" as the manager of the home, cleaner of the house, and no nonsense yet affectionate parent. The father's are often shown as auxiliary figures or dolts. Don't these images continue to reinforce the view that men are just big kids who need to be managed by "mom"?

OK, rant off. :)

As for the study, I'm glad that there is some research that confirms the need for affection in a child's life.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. I think you make a really important point.

Even "progressive" depictions of caring, involved fathers more often than not portray said fathers as well-meaning but bumbling and/or distracted, or who kinda-sorta want to take care of their kid, but get flustered after a grueling 30 minutes of dealing with poopy diapers and tears and can't wait to hand the kid back to mom. Granted, this is a step up from the previous generations' concept of fatherhood, in which dad most certainly did not change diapers or feed a baby or anything that could be construed as "the mother's job," but we still have a long way to go. I think this portrayal does a grave disservice to both men and women - it teaches women that men just can't be trusted with the dirty jobs like diaper duty, and it belittles men by suggesting that they are somehow incapable of "really" devoting themselves to their baby's care, because hey, there's a football game on TV!

I don't have kids, but when I do, I expect that my husband will be as engaged in childcare as I am - both because I don't believe in strict gender roles, and also because I think my kids will be better off if they know their mother AND father love and shower them with care and affection. Your kids are very lucky to have a loving dad in their life :)

[Igel]

23. Don't be sensitive.

Not worth it.

Some fathers can substitute for mothers and vice-versa, some can't.

It's controversial because nobody likes the claims and results, but mothers and fathers play different roles in a kid's life. They're typically--not always--psychologically different and a kid benefits from both kinds of psychologies. Even in perfectly good households, a teenager will look, most of the time, to the father for rules and to the mother for relaying confidences and some kinds of support. Separating the roles is good. Father's affection is important; a mother's affection is usually more important. I view it like a woman's being offended because she's told she can't be a sperm donor or a man's being pissed because he's told that he can't donate eggs.

Of course, it's hard on single parents, esp. if they've decided to be single parents, because it means that they've statistically predisposed their kids to worse kinds of outcomes. Many parents who passed along DNA to their kids that dictates or predisposes them to have some disadvantage or problem struggle to deny that they are responsible; they have little choice in the matter, but they feel guilt or react poorly to the idea of bearing responsibility (because that's guilt).

In one ed psych class the single most import factors in her kids' academic success, statistically, were the amount of time spent reading to the kid early in life and spent monitoring or working with the kid as she does her homework. A single mother stood up and said that she rejected the idea, she was a good mother and how dare they insult her or say that she needed to supervise her kids homework--after work, school, housework, cooking, shopping, etc., she needed time alone, time for herself. The instructors shrugged and said maybe she was exceptional and had exceptional kids. She said that was obviously the case, preened, and sat down. I thought she was a fool and really hope she washed out of the program.

A lot of commercials are for products directed to women. Showing women as the demur, 1950s-style housewife wouldn't work. Showing women as at least a capable as men strokes egos, reinforces self-esteem, and makes the consumer feel good about the product. They're sexist or tongue-in-cheek or just good 'framing' (to use Lakoff's term for advertising). The problem is that you can't claim "reverse sexism". For the same kinds of reasons, try to find a condom sized "extra small" or "small". Or, for example, I worked for a company whose dress designer was a size 1. Her size 10 dresses were tight on women who usually wore size 6. No size 10 woman wants to be told she takes a size 16.

[Stuckinthebush]

30. I disagree with the opening premise in your post

But would agree not to be too sensitive.

I don't think that mother's are naturally programmed to be more caring than fathers. My premise is that most of this is societally produced. I would agree that many mothers ARE more caring than fathers. Because I am more caring than my daughters' mother doesn't mean that every man is. I am saying that society reinforces the role of father as the doltish, dirty, sports fanatic that has to be treated like a child.

Popular culture reinforces these stereotypes through media.

Researchers are people and products of their society. Therefore, this particular research project focused on the role of "mother" as opposed to "parent" or "primary caregiver".

It's all just a critical analysis of culture.

[defendandprotect]

25. Nice thinking . . . Mothers can't be everywhere all the time . . .

We also have to end male circumcision -- a little nervous-making there, I imagine???!!!

[Stuckinthebush]

29. Yes, male circumcision needs to end

Agreed. Silly custom that has been shown to be irrelevant to disease transmission.

But that seems to be another discussion.

[defendandprotect]

32. Yes . . . it's part of another discussion . . . but ...

it certainly severely impacts the newborn males stress levels and nervousness --

IMO, that newborn male has to feel betrayed by those responsible for his care?

[Stuckinthebush]

37. Interesting point

I never thought of it like that.

[Lance_Boyle]

41. Don't be so sensitive. It's not 'manly.'

You might be called an "MRA" here for this post.

[Stuckinthebush]

44. Ha! OK...

I'll man up and burp.

Pass the corn chips.

[babydollhead]

14. I lavishly loved up my babies.

two are nice people. one is a dick. please explain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. May I guess -

the dick is the middle child.

[babydollhead]

27. yes. the dick is the middle child

do you know her?

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. The middle child is usually the 'lost' child - no matter how they are

actually treated the middle child does not have the responsibility and respect of the oldest, nor is coddled like the youngest, and winds up feeling overlooked (whether true or not) as a result. Therefore, dickishness, to draw the attention they feel they are otherwise lacking.

Or, OTOH, I had a 1 in 3 chance of being right.

[babydollhead]

40. me too

[defendandprotect]

26. Obviously, the other one would have been . . .

a "bigger dick" had you not devoted so much love!!

From the great book of knowledge re children/parenting called --

"Who the hell knows why?" --

:)

[uncommon]

17. The most uneasy, panicky adults I know were the children of smothering

overly affectionate mothers and fathers.

I call bullshit. Also, ew.

:puke:

(Edited to add: obviously parental love and affection are important, but there is also such a thing as too much.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. There's a difference between affection and coddling.

I've heard people say that you shouldn't pick up a crying baby because it "teaches them that crying will get them what they want." No, BABIES cry because they have no other way to tell you that something is wrong. Most of the fucked up people I know had parents who didn't give a shit, and the kids knew it. If you learn from early on that your parents don't really give a good goddamn about you, then you're probably not going to wind up giving a good goddamn about anyone else. It boggles my mind that some people think they need to teach their infants and toddlers how to be "independent." Babies and young children ARE dependent. That's the entire point.

And anyway, I think you're talking about coddling, not affection. There's a difference between making sure a child knows that you love him, and letting him do whatever he wants without any consequences. Those are the kinds of kids who grow up thinking that the entire world exists to cater to their whims, because mom and dad never bothered to set any boundaries - which has nothing to do with affection.

[BreweryYardRat]

33. Fuck, I can attest to this from personal experience.

My mother may well have loved me. Since a large part of her so-called "love" involved isolating me from the world and social interaction as a kid/teenager, I'm prone to unease and anxiety as an adult, because my social skills are seriously stunted.

[babydollhead]

38. we like you here, just fine.

a mothers love is just the first love. Look how far you've come! I think there are 10 thousand of us.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Alternative explanation;

Children of anxious, stressed mothers (who logically would tend to provide lower levels of maternal affection) become anxious, stressed adults.

[defendandprotect]

24. We also have to get back to the Colostrum Revolution . . ..

This is the earliest breast milk -- available only for first 24 hours --

Breast milk -- it's benefits are used even old age -- !!

[fascisthunter]

28. Republicans Need Better Mommas

[HughBeaumont]

31. My mom was very loving.

It's the goddamned Laissez-fail economics, no job security and the wealth inequality that's got me permanently insomniated.

[woo me with science]

42. +10000 nt

[Chemical Bill]

34. I think I was in the control group. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

35. DUZY!

:rofl:

Join the club!

PB

[The Stranger]

39. So what if it's too late for some of us?

We're all growed up and no one loved us?

What then?

What now?

[woo me with science]

43. You could look into serial killing.

Bone saws are expensive, but ropes are cheap.

[The Stranger]

45. Hey, thanks!

:hi: